essay on non violence and truth

Personal Finance
Real Estate
Leaders of Tomorrow
India Upfront
Financial Reports
Urban Debate
Car Reviews
Bike Reviews
Bike Comparisons
Car Comparisons
LATEST NEWS
Weight Loss
Men's Fashion
Women's Fashion
Baking Recipes
Breakfast Recipes
Foodie Facts
Healthy Recipes
Seasonal Recipes
Starters & Snacks
Cars First Look
Bikes First Look
Bollywood Fashion & Fitness
Movie Reviews
Planning & Investing
Inspiration Inc
Cricket News
Comparisons

Truth and non-violence – The twin pillars of Gandhian thought

Mahatma Gandhi used the ideals of truth and non-violence as his tools as he led India's freedom struggle against British colonial rule.

Key Highlights

Born on October 2, 1869, Gandhi is also known as the Father of the Nation
To Gandhi, non-violence was not a negative concept but a positive sense of love
During the freedom struggle, Gandhi introduced the spirit of Satyagraha to the world

Whenever we think of Mahatma Gandhi, two words come to our mind - truth and non-violence - as he was a staunch believer in these two ideals. Born on October 2, 1869, Gandhi is known as the Father of the Nation. A lawyer by profession, he used truth and non-violence as his tools during India's freedom struggle against British colonial rule. Gandhi was assassinated on January 30, 1948, almost five months after India gained independence, but his ideals of truth and non-violence still remain relevant in the 21st century.

Gandhi believed that truth is the relative truthfulness in word and deed, and the absolute truth - the ultimate reality. This ultimate truth is God and morality, and the moral laws and code - its basis. According to Gandhi, non-violence implies uttermost selflessness. It means, if anyone wants to realise himself, i.e., if he wants to search for the truth, he has to behave in such a way that others will think him entirely safe.

To him, non-violence was not a negative concept but a positive sense of love. He talked of loving the wrong-doers, but not the wrong. He strongly opposed any sort of submission to wrongs and injustice in an indifferent manner. He thought that the wrong-doers can be resisted only through the severance of all relations with them.

During the freedom struggle, Gandhi introduced the spirit of Satyagraha to the world. Satyagraha means devotion to truth, remaining firm on the truth and resisting untruth actively but nonviolently.

According to Gandhi, a satyagrahi must believe in truth and nonviolence as one's creed and therefore have faith in the inherent goodness of human nature. Besides, a satyagrahi must live a chaste life and be ready and willing for the sake of one's cause to give up his life and his possessions, he would assert.

There are several examples in history which show how strictly Gandhi followed the practice of non-violence in his life and political journey. One of them is the withdrawal of the Non-cooperation movement, which began in August 1920. The movement was aimed at self-governance and obtaining independence, with the Indian National Congress withdrawing its support for British reforms following the Rowlatt Act of March 1919 and the Jallianwala Bagh massacre of April 1919.

However, Gandhi suddenly ended the Non-cooperation movement in 1922 after the Chauri Chaura incident, though many Congress leaders wanted it to continue. The incident occurred at Chauri Chaura in Gorakhpur district of present-day Uttar Pradesh in February 1922, when a large group of protesters, participating in the Non-cooperation movement, clashed with the police, who opened fire. In the ensuing violence, the demonstrators attacked and set fire to a police station, killing several policemen. Gandhi, who was against violence in all forms, ended the Non-cooperation movement as a direct result of this incident.

Truth and non-violence were supreme to him, whatever the political and personal costs.

The views expressed by the author are personal and do not in any way represent those of Times Network.

Latest india News

Home Essay Examples History Mahatma Gandhi

Mahatma Gandhi: As Apostle Of Truth, Non-violence And Tolerance

Category History
Subcategory Historical Figures
Topic Mahatma Gandhi

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi is known to the world as Mahatma Gandhi and Father of the Nation through the outstanding contribution to the humanity. Like all great men in the annuls of history, he was a man of paradoxes, contradictions, prejudices, peculiarities but against these human frailties, he was standing as a colossus in the political arena of the 20th century with his infinite goodness, as the seeker of truth, as the follower of non-violence and tolerance and as the harvester of the greatest gift of mankind, love. Gandhiji had sharpened his moral weapon of non-violence against in India and successfully driven them out through his strangest peaceful revolution. For this purpose, he had honed his people through the organized and disciplined campaign of non-violent civil disobedience against the guns, bayonets and lathi sticks of rulers.

It is really strangest revolution for the people of the other countries. How can change the mindset of the enemies through a peaceful, unarmed and passive resistance? William L. Shirer said, “Our time had never seen anyone like him: a charismatic leader who had aroused a whole continent and indeed the consciousness of the world; a shrewd, tough politician, but also a deeply religious man, a Christ like figure in homespun loincloth, who lived humbly in poverty, practised what he preached and who was regarded by tens of millions of his people as a saint.”

Our writers can write you a new plagiarism-free essay on any topic

Gandhiji was an orthodox Hindu in his way of living but he had actually followed the moral principle of Christ in his spiritual life. He was the stronger follower of Christ than rulers. He may be the first politician in the world to apply the moral principles of the Gospel of Matthew.

“You have heard that it was said, you shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy. But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you that you may be children of your heavenly Father.” Gandhiji had successfully implemented the moral weapon of unarmed resistance in his freedom struggle. His moral strategy was suited to the Indian masses. Because Indians basic nature is tolerant and non-violent. A sheep cannot behave like a tiger. His democratic unarmed resistance against rule had brought miracle in the history like an anti-biotic to the body of the subcontinent. His strategy and logic was impeccable. He said, “The want us to put the struggle on the plane of machine guns where they have the weapons and we do not. Our only assurance of beating them is putting the struggle on a plane where we have weapons and they have not.”

Gandhiji always spoke very calmly and without any bitterness against the lawless repression of the enemies. had practised many barbarities on the Indians and also imprisoned him without any legal prosecution. He never showed any slightest trace of bitterness against the English men. Jallianwalla Bagh massacre in 1919 had again convinced Gandhiji about the mighty power of and need to prepare his organization and the people of India in line with non-violent disobedience. He said, “It gives you an idea of the atrocities perpetrated on the people of the Punjab. It shows you to what length government is capable of going, and what inhumanities and barbarities it is capable of perpetrating in order to maintain its power.” Gandhiji did not want to pull his people towards the calamity of death. He had passionately loved his country and countrymen.

Gandhiji was very hopeful and had full confidence in solving the socio-economic problems, communal problems between Hindus and Muslims and also the problems of the millions of depressed classes. He strongly believed that truth, tolerance and love could amicably resolve all the internal problems when Indians become the masters of their own land. In a question to William L Shirer, Gandhi said, “All these problems will be fairly easy to settle when we are our own masters. I know there will be difficulties, but I have faith in our ultimate capacity to solve them and not by following your Western models but by evolving along the lines of non-violence and truth, on which our movement is based and which must constitute the bedrock of our future constitution.” Gandhiji’s philosophy was panacea in the independent movement and also could be panacea to post-independent India. But his unexpected assassination had put the whole country into the darkness. Therefore, then Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru in his extempore broadcast on All India Radio announcing the news of Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination on 30 January 1948 in a choked voice with deep grief. “The light has gone out of our lives and there is darkness everywhere. Our beloved leader … the father of our nation, is no more.”

Mahatma Gandhi was the light, life and truth to the India. His intellectual courage and radiance were always reflected in his words. In 1922, he was convicted under section 124-A of Indian Penal Code with sedition charges. At the time of the prosecution, he was asked to make a statement by the English judge. He proved himself as a true patriot, true prophet of truth and non-violence and true lawyer to defend his country and countrymen and accepting the sedition charges obediently and made strongest statement in the court. His statement had reflected the intellectual radiance of Mahatma Gandhi and also reflected his truthful understanding and courageous expression. “The law itself in this country has been used to serve the foreign exploiter. My unbiased examination of the Punjab Martial Law cases has led me to believe that at least ninety-five per cent convictions were wholly bad. My experience of political cases in India leads me to the conclusion that in nine out of every ten the condemned men were totally innocent. Their crime consisted in the love of their country. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, justice has been denied to Indians as against Europeans in the courts of India. This is not an exaggerated picture. It is the experience of almost every Indian who has had anything to do with such cases. In my own opinion, the administration of law is thus prostituted consciously or unconsciously for the benefit of the exploiter… Section 124-A, under which I am happily charged, is perhaps the prince among the political sections of the Indian Penal Code designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen. Affection cannot be manufactured or regulated by law. If one has no affection for a person or system, one should be free to give the fullest expression to his disaffection, so long as he does not contemplate, promote, or incite to violence. But the section under which I am charged is one under which mere promotion of disaffection is a crime. I have studied some of the cases under it, and I know that some of the most loved of India’s patriots have been convicted under it. I consider it a privilege, therefore, to be charged under that section. I have endeavoured to give in their briefest outline the reasons for my disaffection. I have no personal ill-will against any single administrator, much less can I have any disaffection toward the King’s persons. But I hold it to be a virtue to be disaffected toward a government which in its totality has done more harm to India than any previous system.”

Gandhi’s integrity, nobility and overall greatness had reflected in his arguments in the court. He was not fighting against the English men in individual level but he was fiercely fighting against imperialism. He was absolutely fighting against system but he was loving the English persons in system.

Gandhiji’s genius was noticed by the people in the 45th annual convention of the Indian National Congress at Karachi in 1931. While drafting the resolution for the congress in collaboration with Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru had seen in Gandhi a political genius at his best. Karachi congress had witnessed his marvellous spirit of leadership and magnificent control over the masses. He was the chief architect of the resolution for the convention in which he had earmarked the concept of the future constitution of the independent India. The congress adopted this resolution on fundamental rights and economic policy. This resolution on fundamental rights passed by the Karachi session of congress had many socialistic provisions. The resolution was the product of heart to heart talk between the Gandhi and Nehru. Karachi resolution had definitely influenced the Constituent Assembly in drawing up the Indian Constitution. It was envisaged the spirit of the independent India’s constitution. He was not only the father of the nation but also he was really the father of the Indian Constitution.

Gandhiji in his continuous meetings with other leaders of the minorities and depressed classes pleaded before them to submerge their differences and unitedly demand the freedom from. As the staunch follower of tolerance, he strongly believed that the internal differences could be settled either by an impartial tribunal or by a special convention of Indian leaders elected by their constituencies. He made his last appeal to the infighting countrymen.

“It is absurd for us to quarrel among ourselves before we know what we are going to get from government. If we knew definitely that we were going to get what we want, then we would hesitate fifty times before we threw it away in a sinful wrangle. The communal solution can be the crown of the national constitution, not its foundation, if only because our differences are hardened by reason of foreign domination. I have no shadow of doubt that the iceberg of communal differences would melt under the warmth of the sun of freedom.”

Lord Mountbatten offered liberation package with a dividing idea. Gandhiji warned him, “You’ll have to divide my body before you divide India.” The ageing leader in his 78 age felt severe isolation politically and emotionally. His close aides like Patel and Nehru also proved more practical in their approach and renounced their master. With this isolated situation Gandhiji said, “I find myself alone, even Patel and Nehru think I’m wrong…They wonder if I have not deteriorated with age, May be they are right and I alone am floundering in darkness.”

At the stroke of midnight on August 14, 1947, when Prime Minister, Nehru from the Red Fort proclaimed India’s independence and the whole nation was in great celebration, Gandhi slept in a slum in Calcutta. He was silent in the next day and spent most of his time in prayer. He made no public statement. It was a great tragedy in his life and also in the life of this nation. He was disheartened, saddened and humiliated by his own people. He had lived, worked and taught the people for non-violence, truth, tolerance and love. He had seen in his period the failure his principles and failed to take root among his own countrymen.

William L. Shirer recorded this tragedy, “He was utterly crushed by the terrible bloodshed that swept India, just as self-government was won, provoked this time not by but by the savage quarrels of his fellow Indians. Fleeing by the millions across the new boundaries, the Muslims from India, the Hindus from Pakistan, a half million of them had been slain in cold blood before they could reach safely. Desperately and with heavy heart, and at the risk of his life, Gandhiji had gone among them, into the blood socked streets of Calcutta and the lanes of smaller towns and villages, littered with corpses and the debris of burning buildings, and beseeched them to stop the slaughter. He had fasted twice to induce the Hindus and the Muslims to make peace. But, except for temporary truces that were quickly broken, too little avail. All his lifelong teaching and practice of non-violence, which had been so successful in the struggle against, had come to nought. The realization that it had failed to keep his fellow Indians from flying at one another’s throats the moment they were free from shattered him.” For 78 year old Gandhi, it was a great shock and bewilderment to his philosophy of non-violence, truth, tolerance and love.

Gandhiji was betrayed by his own countrymen and he was assassinated by his own religious man. His assassin had successfully silenced Gandhi physically with three bullets. But bullets cannot destroy his truth, non-violence and tolerance. His spirit of principles will shine for centuries to come. It was illumined the life of great men like Nelson Mandela in South Africa and Martin Luther King in United States of America and peace loving millions of the world. Gandhiji’s martyrdom itself is caused to resurrect his principles and shine all over the world in eternity. Thus, his position as an apostle of truth, non-violence and tolerance in the political arena of 20th century is in its zenith.

Works Cited

Copley, Antony, Gandhi against the Tide, 1987, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
Kapoor, Virender, Leadership the Gandhi Way, 2014, Rupa & Co, New Delhi.
Kasturi, Bhashyam, Walking Alone Gandhi and India’s Partition, 2007, Vision Books, New Delhi.
Rao, U.R., Prabhu, R.K., The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi, 1967, Navajivan Trust, Ahmadabad.
Shirer, William L., Gandhi A Memoir, 1993, Rupa & Co, New Delhi.

We have 98 writers available online to start working on your essay just NOW!

Gandhi: Toward a Vision of Nonviolence, Peace, and Justice

Jacob Kelley 2 ,
Ada Haynes 3 &
Andrea Arce-Trigatti 4
Living reference work entry
First Online: 13 June 2023

58 Accesses

One cannot think of nonviolence, peace, and justice without considering the influence of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. An intellectual activist working primarily in twentieth-century India, Gandhi advanced nonviolent philosophies that resonated with liberation movements in his home country and around the world. Integrating Eastern and Western thought into new approaches to education as a form of liberating individuals and communities, his conceptualization of Nai Talim – which translates to Basic Education – provides a framework for compulsory education steered toward peace. Through this philosophy, Gandhi presents readers with a contrast to the corporate perspective of education that trains people to be homogenized workers and community members to a perspective of peace and social justice in which previously marginalized groups are included and given a voice. To better understand these contributions, this chapter focuses on essential aspects of his life; five conceptual contributions from Gandhian principles that reflect theoretical, methodological, and practical implications for education today; new insights; and lasting legacies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Adavi, K. A. K., Das, S., & Nair, H. (2016, December 3). Was Gandhi a racist? The Hindu . https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/Was-Gandhi-a-racist/article16754773.ece

Adjei, P. B. (2013). The non-violent philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. in the 21st century: Implications for the pursuit of social justice in global context. Journal of Global Citizenship & Equity Education, 3 (1), 80–101.

Google Scholar

Arce-Trigatti, A., & Akenson, J. E. (2021). The historical blind spot: Guidelines for creating educational leadership culture as old wine in recycled, upscale, and expanded bottles. Educational Studies, 57 (5), 544–565. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2021.1919673

Article Google Scholar

Arce-Trigatti, A., Kelley, J., & Haynes, A. (2022). On new ground: Assessment strategies for critical thinking skills as the learning outcome in a social problems course. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2022 (169), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20484

Behera, H. (2016). Educational philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi with special reference to curriculum of basic education. International Education & Research Journal, 2 , 112–115.

B’Hahn, C. (2001). Be the change you wish to see: An interview with Arun Gandhi. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 10 (1), 6–9.

Bissio, B. (2021). Gandhi’s Satyagraha and its legacy in the Americas and Africa. Social Change, 51 (1), 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049085721993164

Brooks, R., & Everett, G. (2008). The impact of higher education on lifelong learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 27 (3), 239–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370802047759

Brown, J. M. (1991). Gandhi: Prisoner of hope . Yale University Press.

Chadha, Y. (1997). Gandhi: A life . John Wiley & Sons.

Deshmukh, S. P. (2010, March). Gandhi’s basic education: A medium of value education Gandhi Research Foundation . http://www.mkgandhi.org/articles/basic_edu.htm

Dey, S. (2021). The relevance of Gandhi’s correlating principles of education in peace education. Journal of Peace Education, 18 (3), 326–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/17400201.2021.1989391

Einstein, A. (1956). Out of my later years . Philosophical Library.

Ferrari, M., Abdelaal, Y., Lakhani, S., Sachdeva, S., Tasmim, S., & Sharma, D. (2016). Why is Gandhi wise? A cross-cultural comparison of Gandhi as an exemplar of wisdom. Journal of Adult Development, 23 (1), 204–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-016-9236-7

Fischer, L. (1957). The life of Mahatma Gandhi . Jonathan Cape.

Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, peace, and peace research. Journal of Peace Research, 6 (3), 167–191.

Gandhi, M. K. (1940). The story of my experiments with truth (M. Desai, Trans.). Navajivan Publishing House.

Gandhi, M. K. (1946). The selected works of Mahatma Gandhi: The voice of truth (Vol. 5). Navajivan Publishing House.

Gandhi, M. K. (1968). The selected works of Mahatma Gandhi: Satyagraha in South Africa (2nd ed.) (S. Narayan, Ed., V. G. Desai, Trans.). Navajivan Trust.

Gandhi, R. (2006). Gandhi: The man, his people, and the empire . University of California Press.

Gerson, D., & Van Soest, D. (1999). Relevance of Gandhi to a peaceful and just world society: Lesson for social work practice and education. New Global Development, 15 (1), 8–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/17486839908415649

Ghose, S. (1991). Mahatma Gandhi . Allied Publishers.

Ghosh, R. (2017). Gandhi and global citizenship education. Global Commons Review, 1 , 12–17.

Ghosh, R. (2019). Juxtaposing the educational ideas of Gandhi and Freire. In C. A. Torres (Ed.), The Whiley handbook of Paulo Freire (pp. 275–290). Wiley.

Chapter Google Scholar

Ghosh, R. (2020). Gandhi, the freedom fighter and educator: A southern theorist. The International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 19 , 19–29.

Green, M. (1986). The origins of nonviolence: Tolstoy and Gandhi in their historical settings . Pennsylvania State University Press.

Guha, R. (2013). Gandhi before India . Vintage Books.

Hyslop, J. (2011). Gandhi 1869–1915: The transnational emergence of a public figure. In J. Brown & A. Parel (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Gandhi (pp. 30–50). Cambridge University Press.

Kelley, J. (2021). The transforming citizen: A conceptual framework for civic education in challenging times. Journal of Educational Thought/Revue de la Pensée Educative, 54 (1), 63–76.

Kelley, J., & Watson, A. (2023). Shaping a path forward: Critical approaches to civic education in tumultuous times. In T. Hoggan-Kloubert, P. E. Mabrey, & C. Hoggan (Eds.), Transformative civic education in democratic societies (pp. 43–51). Michigan State University Press.

Kelley, J., Arce-Trigatti, A., & Garner, B. (2020). Marching to a different beat: Reflections from a community of practice on diversity and equity. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching and Learning Journal, 13 (3), 110–119. https://doi.org/10.26209/td.v13i3.505

Kelley, J., Arce-Trigatti, A., & Haynes, A. (2021). Beyond the individual: Deploying the sociological imagination as a research method in the neoliberal university. In C. E. Matias (Ed.), The handbook of critical theoretical research methods in education (pp. 449–475). Routledge.

Lang-Wojtasik, G. (2018). Transformative cosmopolitan education and Gandhi’s relevance today. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 10 (1), 72–89. https://doi.org/10.18546/IJDEGL.10.1.06

Lem, P. (2022). Teaching in Hindi . Times for Higher Education – Inside Higher Ed . https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/10/28/indian-academics-criticize-proposal-advance-hindi

Markovits, C. (2004). A history of modern India, 1480–1950 . Anthem Press.

Ohmann, R. (2022). Politics of teaching. Radical Teacher, 123 , 34–41. https://doi.org/10.5195/rt.2022.1042

Ortwein, L. (2018). My experience with restorative justice in American schools. M. K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence . https://gandhiinstitute.org/2018/07/24/my-experience-with-restorative-justice-in-american-schools/

Pandey, P. (2020). Finding Gandhi in The National Education Policy 2020. Outlook . https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/opinion-finding-gandhi-in-the-national-education-policy-2020/361300

Pant, M., & Singh, D. (2019). Pedagogy/relevance of education from Gandhi, Freire and Dewey’s perspective. The New Leam. https://www.thenewleam.com/2019/10/pedagogy-relevance-of-education-from-gandhi-freire-and-deweys-perspective/

Parekh, B. C. (2001). Gandhi: A very short introduction . Oxford University Press.

Book Google Scholar

Paulick, J. H., Karam, F. J., & Kibler, A. K. (2022). Everyday objects and home visits: A window into the cultural models of families of culturally and linguistically marginalized students. Language Arts, 99 (6), 390–401.

Power, P. F. (2016). Toward a revaluation of Gandhi’s political thought. Political Research Quarterly, 16 , 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591296301600107

Rao, R. (1969). Gandhi. The UNESCO Courier, 9 , 4–12.

Tendulkar, D. G. (1951). Mahatma: Life of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi . Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.

Williams, J. (2006, Winter). You be the change you wish to see in the world. Our Schools, Our Selves, 15 (2), 155–156

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA

Jacob Kelley

Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville, TN, USA

Tallahassee Community College, Tallahassee, FL, USA

Andrea Arce-Trigatti

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jacob Kelley .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Educational Leadership, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI, USA

Brett A. Geier

Section Editor information

New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, USA

Azadeh F. Osanloo Professor

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Kelley, J., Haynes, A., Arce-Trigatti, A. (2023). Gandhi: Toward a Vision of Nonviolence, Peace, and Justice. In: Geier, B.A. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Educational Thinkers . Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81037-5_89-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81037-5_89-1

Received : 08 February 2023

Accepted : 19 February 2023

Published : 13 June 2023

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-81037-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-81037-5

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Education Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Education

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

Truth And Non-violence

The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi [ Encyclopedia of Gandhi's Thoughts ]

You Are Here
Gandhi Books
Online Books
The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi :Chapter-21: The Gospel of Non-Violence

THE MIND OF MAHATMA GANDHI (Encyclopedia of Gandhi's Thoughts)

Compiled & Edited by : R. K. Prabhu & U. R. Rao

Neither Saints Nor Sinner
My Mahatmaship
I Know The Path
The Inner Voice
My Inconsistencies
My Writings
The Gospel of Truth
Truth Is God
Truth And Beauty
The Gospel of Fearlessness
The Gospel of Faith
The Meaning of God
Prayer The Food of My Soul
My Hinduism : Not Exclusive
Religion And Politics
Temples And Idolatry
The Curse of Untouchability
The Gospel of Non-Violence
The Power of Non-Violence
Training For Non-Violence
Application of Non-Violence
The Non-Violent Society
The Non-Violent State
Violence And Terrorism
Between Cowardice Violence
Resistance To Aggression
The Choice Before India
India & The Nonviolent Way
India & The Violent Way
The Gospel of Satyagraha
The Power of Satyagraha
Non-Co-Operation
Fasting And Satyagraha
The Gospel of Non-Possession
Poverty And Riches
Daridranarayan
The Gospel of Bread Labour
Labour And Capital
Strikes: Legitimate And Illegitimate
Tillers of The Soil
Choice Before Labour
The Gospel of Sarvodaya
The Philosophy of Yajna
This Satanic Civilization
Man v. Machine
The Curse of Industrialization
A Socialist Pattern of Society
The Communist Creed
The Gospel of Trusteeship
Non-Violent Economy
Economic Equality
The Gospel of Brahmacharya
The Marriage Ideal
Birth-Control
Woman's Status And Role In Society
Sex Education
Crimes Against Women
The Ashram Vows
The Gospel of Freedom
What Swaraj Means To Me
I Am Not Anti-British
Foreign Settlements In India
India And Pakistan
India's Mission
Essence of Democracy
The Indian National Congress
Popular Ministries
India of My Dreams
Back To The Village
All Round Village Service
Panchayat Raj
Linguistic Provinces
Cow Protection
Co-operative Cattle Farming
Nature Cure
Corporate Sanitation
Communal Harmony
The Gospel of The Charkha
Meaning of Swadeshi
The Gospel of Love
All Life Is One
No Cultural Isolation For Me
Nationalism v Internationalism
War And Peace
Nuclear War
The way To Peace
The World of Tomorrow

About This Book

Compiled & Edited by : R. K. Prabhu & U. R. Rao With Forewords by: Acharya Vinoba Bhave & Dr. S. Radhakrishnan I.S.B.N : 81-7229-149-3 Published by : Jitendra T. Desai, Navajivan Mudranalaya, Ahmedabad - 380 014, India. © Navajivan Trust, 1960

The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi. [PDF]

Chapter-21: The Gospel of Non-Violence

The Law of Our Species I am not a visionary. I claim to be a practical idealist. The religion of non-violence is not meant merely for the rishis and saints. It is meant for the common people as well. Non-violence is the law of our species as violence is the law of the brute. The spirit lies dormant in the brute and he knows no law but that of physical might. The dignity of man requires obedience to a higher law-to the strength of the spirit.... The rishis who discovered the law of non-violence in the midst of violence were greater geniuses than Newton. They were themselves known the use of arms, they realized their uselessness, and taught a weary world that its salvation lay not through violence but through non-violence.

(YI, 11-8-1920, p3)

My Ahimsa I know only one way-the way of ahimsa. The way of himsa goes against my grain. I do not want to cultivate the power to inculcate himsa...The faith sustains me that He is the help of the helpless, that He comes to one's succor only when one throws himself on His mercy. It is because of that faith that I cherish the hope that God will one day show me a path which I may confidently commend to the people.

(YI, 10-10-1928, p342)

I have been a 'gambler' all my life. In my passion for finding truth and in relentlessly following out my faith in non-violence, I have counted no stake too great. In doing so I have erred, if at all, in the company of the most distinguished scientist of any age and any clime.

(YI, 20-2-1930, p61)

I learnt the lesson of non-violence from my wife, when I tried to bend her to my will. Her determined resistance to my will, on the one hand, and her quiet submission to the suffering my stupidity involved, on the other, ultimately made me ashamed of myself and cured me of my stupidity in thinking that I was born to rule over her and, in the end, she became my teacher in non-violence.

(H, 24-12-1938, p394)

The doctrine that has guided my life is not one of inaction but of the highest action.

(H, 28-6-1942, p201)

I must not...flatter myself with the belief--nor allow friends...to entertain the belief that I have exhibited any heroic and demonstrable non-violence in myself. All I can claim is that I am sailing in that direction without a moment's stop.

(H, 11-1-1948, p504)

Character of Non-violence Non-violence is the law of the human race and is infinitely greater than and superior to brute force. In the last resort it does not avail to those who do not possess a living faith in the God of Love. Non-violence affords the fullest protection to one's self-respect and sense of honour, but not always to possession of land or movable property, though its habitual practice does prove a better bulwark than the possession of armed men to defend them. Non-violence, in the very nature of things, is of no assistance in the defence of ill-gotten gains and immoral acts. Individuals or nations who would practice non-violence must be prepared to sacrifice (nations to last man) their all except honour. It is, therefore, inconsistent with the possession of other people's countries, i.e., modern imperialism, which is frankly based on force for its defence. Non-violence is a power which can be wielded equally by all-children, young men and women or grown-up people, provided they have a living faith in the God of Love and have therefore equal love for all mankind. When non-violence is accepted as the law of life, it must pervade the whole being and not be applied to isolated acts. It is a profound error to suppose that, whilst the law is good enough for individuals, it is not for masses of mankind.

(H, 5-9-1936, p236)

For the way of non-violence and truth is sharp as the razor's edge. Its practice is more than our daily food. Rightly taken, food sustains the body; rightly practiced non-violence sustains the soul. The body food we can only take in measured quantities and at stated intervals; non-violence, which is the spiritual food, we have to take in continually. There is no such thing as satiation. I have to be conscious every moment that I am pursuing the goal and have to examine myself in terms of that goal.

Changeless Creed The very first step in non-violence is that we cultivate in our daily life, as between ourselves, truthfulness, humility, tolerance, loving kindness. Honesty, they say in English, is the best policy. But, in terms of non-violence, it is not mere policy. Policies may and do change. Non-violence is an unchangeable creed. It has to be pursued in face of violence raging around you. Non-violence with a non-violent man is no merit. In fact it becomes difficult to say whether it is non-violence at all. But when it is pitted against violence, then one realizes the difference between the two. This we cannot do unless we are ever wakeful, ever vigilant, ever striving.

(H, 2-4-1938, p64)

The only thing lawful is non-violence. Violence can never be lawful in the sense meant here, i.e., not according to man-made law but according to the law made by Nature for man.

(H, 27-10-1946, p369)

Faith in God [A living faith in non-violence] is impossible without a living faith in God. A non-violent man can do nothing save by the power and grace of God. Without it he won't have the courage to die without anger, without fear and without retaliation. Such courage comes from the belief that God sits in the hearts of all and that there should be no fear in the presence of God. The knowledge of the omnipresence of God also means respect for the lives even of those who may be called opponents....

(H, 18-6-1938, p64)

Non-violence is an active force of the highest order. It is soul force or the power of Godhead within us. Imperfect man cannot grasp the whole of that Essence-he would not be able to bear its full blaze, but even an infinitesimal fraction of it, when it becomes active within us, can work wonders. The sun in the heavens fills the whole universe with its life-giving warmth. But if one went too near it, it would consume him to ashes. Even so it is with God-head. We become Godlike to the extent we realize non-violence; but we can never become wholly God.

(H, 12-11-1938, p326)

The fact is that non-violence does not work in the same way as violence. It works in the opposite way. An armed man naturally relies upon his arms. A man who is intentionally unarmed relies upon the Unseen Force called God by poets, but called the Unknown by scientists. But that which is unknown is not necessarily non-existent. God is the Force among all forces known and unknown. Non-violence without reliance upon that Force is poor stuff to be thrown in the dust.

Consciousness of the living presence of God within one is undoubtedly the first requisite.

(H, 29-6-1947, p209)

Religious Basis My claim to Hinduism has been rejected by some, because I believe and advocate non-violence in its extreme form. They say that I am a Christian in disguise. I have been even seriously told that I am distorting the meaning of the Gita, when I ascribe to that great poem the teaching of unadulterated non-violence. Some of my Hindu friends tell me that killing is a duty enjoined by the Gita under certain circumstances. A very learned shastri only the other day scornfully rejected my interpretation of the Gita and said that there was no warrant for the opinion held by some commentators that the Gita represented the eternal duel between forces of evil and good, and inculcated the duty of eradicating evil within us without hesitation, without tenderness. I state these opinions against non-violence in detail, because it is necessary to understand them, if we would understand the solution I have to offer.... I must be dismissed out of considerations. My religion is a matter solely between my Maker and myself. If I am a Hindu, I cannot cease to be one even though I may be disowned by the whole of the Hindu population. I do however suggest that non-violence is the end of all religions.

(YI, 29-5-1924, p175)

The lesson of non-violence is present in every religion, but I fondly believe that, perhaps, it is here in India that its practice has been reduced to a science. Innumerable saints have laid down their lives in tapashcharya until poets had felt that the Himalayas became purified in their snowy whiteness by means of their sacrifice. But all this practice of non-violence is nearly dead today. It is necessary to revive the eternal law of answering anger by love and of violence by non-violence; and where can this be more readily done than in this land of Kind Janaka and Ramachandra?

(H, 30-3-1947, p86)

Hinduism's Unique Contribution Non-violence is common to all religions, but it has found the highest expression and application in Hinduism. (I do not regard Jainism or Buddhism as separate from Hinduism). Hinduism believes in the oneness not of merely all human life but in the oneness of all that lives. Its worship of the cow is, in my opinion, its unique contribution to the evolution of humanitarianism. It is a practical application of the belief in the oneness and, therefore, sacredness of all life. The great belief in transmigration is a direct consequence of that belief. Finally, the discovery of the law of Varnashrama is a magnificent result of the ceaseless search for truth.

(YI, 20-10-1927, p352)

I have also been asked wherefrom in Hinduism I have unearthed ahimsa. Ahimsa is in Hinduism, it is in Christianity as well as in Islam. Whether you agree with me or not, it is my bounden duty to preach what I believe to be the truth as I see it. I am also sure that ahimsa has never made anyone a coward.

(H, 27-4-1947, p126)

The Koran and Non-violence [Barisaheb] assured me that there was warrant enough for Satyagraha in the Holy Koran. He agreed with the interpretation of the Koran to the effect that, whilst violence under certain well-defined circumstances is permissible, self-restraint is dearer to God than violence, and that is the law of love. That is Satyagraha. Violence is concession to human weakness, Satyagraha is an obligation. Even from the practical standpoint it is easy enough to see that violence can do no good and only do infinite harm.

(YI, 14-5-1919, quoted in Communal Unity, p985)

Some Muslim friends tell me that Muslims will never subscribe to unadulterated non-violence. With them, they say, violence is as lawful and necessary as non-violence. The use of either depends upon circumstances. It does not need Koranic authority to justify the lawfulness of both. That is the well-known path the world has traversed through the ages. There is no such thing as unadulterated violence in the world. But I have heard it from many Muslim friends that the Koran teaches the use of non-violence. It regards forbearance as superior to vengeance. The very word Islam means peace, which is non-violence. Badshahkhan, a staunch Muslim who never misses his namaz and Ramzan, has accepted out and out non-violence as his creed. It would be no answer to say that he does not live up to his creed, even as I know to my shame that I do not one of kind, it is of degree. But, argument about non-violence in the Holy Koran is an interpolation, not necessary for my thesis.

(H, 7-10-1939, p296)

No Matter of Diet Ahimsa is not a mere matter of dietetics, it transcends it. What a man eats or drinks matters little; it is the self-denial, the self-restraint behind it that matters. By all means practice as much restraint in the choice of the articles of your diet as you like. The restraint is commendable, even necessary, but it touches only the fringe of ahimsa. A man may allow himself a wide latitude in the matter of diet and yet may be a personification of ahimsa and compel our homage, if is heart overflows with love and melts at another's woe, and has been purged of all passions. On the other hand a man always over-scrupulous in diet is an utter stranger to ahimsa and pitiful wretch, if he is a slave to selfishness and passions and is hard of heart.

(YI, 6-9-1928, pp300-1)

Road to Truth My love for non-violence is superior to every other thing mundane or supramundane. It is equaled only by my love for Truth, which is to me synonymous with non-violence through which and which alone I can see and reach Truth.

....Without ahimsa it is not possible to seek and find Truth. Ahimsa and Truth are so intertwined that it is practically impossible to disentangle and separate them. They are like the two sides of a coin, or rather of a smooth, unstamped, metallic disc. Who can say which is the obverse, and which is the reverse? Nevertheless ahimsa is the means; Truth is the end. Means to be means must always be within our reach, and so ahimsa is our supreme duty. If we take care of the means, we are bound to reach the end sooner of latter. When once we have grasped this point, final victory is beyond question.

(FYM, pp12-3)

Ahimsa is not the goal. Truth is the goal. But we have no means of realizing truth in human relationships except through the practice of ahimsa. A steadfast pursuit of ahimsa is inevitably bound to truth--not so violence. That is why I swear by ahimsa. Truth came naturally to me. Ahimsa I acquired after a struggle. But ahimsa being the means, we are naturally more concerned with it in our everyday life. It is ahimsa, therefore, that our masses have to be educated in. Education in truth follows from it as a natural end.

(H, 23-6-1946, p199)

No Cover for Cowardice My non-violence does not admit of running away from danger and leaving dear ones unprotected. Between violence and cowardly flight, I can only prefer violence to cowardice. I can no more preach non-violence to a coward than I can tempt a blind man to enjoy healthy scenes. Non-violence is the summit of bravery. And in my own experience, I have had no difficulty in demonstrating to men trained in the school of violence the superiority of non-violence. As a coward, which I was for years, I harboured violence. I began to prize non-violence only when I began to shed cowardice. Those Hindus who ran away from the post of duty when it was attended with danger did so not because they were non-violent, or because they were afraid to strike, but because they were unwilling to die or even suffer an injury. A rabbit that runs away from the bull terrier is not particularly non-violent. The poor thing trembles at the sight of the terrier and runs for very life.

(YI, 28-5-1924, p178)

Non-violence is not a cover for cowardice, but it is the supreme virtue of the brave. Exercise of non-violence requires far greater bravery than that of swordsmanship. Cowardice is wholly inconsistent with non-violence. Translation from swordsmanship to non-violence is possible and, at times, even an easy stage. Non-violence, therefore, presupposes ability to strike. It is a conscious deliberate restraint put upon one's desire for vengeance. But vengeance is any day superior to passive, effeminate and helpless submission. Forgiveness is higher still. Vengeance too is weakness. The desire for vengeance comes out of fear of harm, imaginary or real. A dog barks and bites when he fears. A man who fears no one on earth would consider it too troublesome even to summon up anger against one who is vainly trying to injure him. The sun does not wreak vengeance upon little children who throw dust at him. They only harm themselves in the act.

(YI, 12-8-1926, p285)

The path of true non-violence requires much more courage than violence.

(H, 4-8-1946, pp248-9)

The minimum that is required of a person wishing to cultivate the ahimsa of the brave is first to clear one's thought of cowardice and, in the light of the clearance, regulate his conduct in every activity, great or small. Thus the votary must refuse to be cowed down by his superior, without being angry. He must, however, be ready to sacrifice his post, however remunerative it may be. Whilst sacrificing his all, if the votary has no sense of irritation against his employer, he has ahimsa of the brave in him. Assume that a fellow-passenger threatens my son with assault and I reason with the would-be-assailant who then turns upon me. If then I take his blow with grace and dignity, without harbouring any ill-will against him, I exhibit the ahimsa of the brave. Such instances are of every day occurrence and can be easily multiplied. If I succeed in curbing my temper every time and, though able to give blow for blow, I refrain, I shall develop the ahimsa of the brave which will never fail me and which will compel recognition from the most confirmed adversaries.

(H, 17-11-1946, p404)

Inculcation of cowardice is against my nature. Ever since my return from South Africa, where a few thousand had stood up not unsuccessfully against heavy odds, I have made it my mission to preach true bravery which ahimsa means.

(H, 1-6-1947, p175)

Humility Essential If one has...pride and egoism, there is no non-violence. Non-violence is impossible without humility. My own experience is that, whenever I have acted non-violently, I have been led to it and sustained in it by the higher promptings of an unseen power. Through my own will I should have miserably failed. When I first went to jail, I quailed at the prospect. I had heard terrible things about jail life. But I had faith in God's protection. Our experience was that those who went to jail in a prayerful spirit came out victorious, those who had gone in their own strength failed. There is no room for self-pitying in it either when you say God is giving you the strength. Self-pity comes when you do a thing for which you expect recognition from others. But there is no question of recognition.

(H, 28-1-1939, p442)

It was only when I had learnt to reduce myself to zero that I was able to evolve the power of Satyagraha in South Africa.

(H, 6-5-1939, p113)

Remembering Gandhi Assassination of Gandhi Tributes to Gandhi Gandhi's Human Touch Gandhi Poster Exhibition Send Gandhi Greetings Gandhi Books Read Gandhi Books Online Download PDF Books Download EPUB/MOBI Books Gandhi Literature Collected Works of M. Gandhi Selected Works of M.Gandhi Selected Letters Famous Speeches Gandhi Resources Gandhi Centres/Institutions Museums/Ashrams/Libraries Gandhi Tourist Places Resource Persons Related Websites Glossary / Sources Associates of Mahatma Gandhi -->

Home — Essay Samples — History — Mahatma Gandhi — Truth And Nonviolence As Old As Hill: Mahatma Gandhi

Truth and Nonviolence as Old as Hill: Mahatma Gandhi

Categories: Mahatma Gandhi Nonviolence Truth

About this sample

Words: 2462 |

13 min read

Published: Mar 18, 2021

Words: 2462 | Pages: 5 | 13 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

Expert in: History Philosophy

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 772 words

1 pages / 564 words

1 pages / 511 words

5 pages / 2155 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Truth and Nonviolence as Old as Hill: Mahatma Gandhi Essay

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Mahatma Gandhi

The great Mahatma Gandhi once stated that a man becomes what he believes himself to be. By continually declaring that a particular task is hard to undertake, the possibility of that becoming a reality is very high. Contrarily, [...]

Mahatma Gandhi, also known as the "Father of the Nation" in India, was a prominent leader of the Indian independence movement against British colonial rule. His leadership style, characterized by nonviolent resistance, the [...]

Mahatma Gandhi, the great Indian leader, is widely known for his perseverance in the face of adversity. His unwavering determination and persistence played a crucial role in bringing about significant social and political change [...]

Mahatma Gandhi, in the book “Selected Political Writings,” claimed that “swaraj” is to be taken to mean the “independence” of a nation or people. In this essay I will discuss the questions of: Why does Gandhi think nations [...]

“A leader is the one who knows the way, goes the way, and shows the way,” by John C. Maxwell (C.Maxwell). Every leader has followers so that he can lead and show them the right direction to achieve the goals. Leadership is a [...]

The well-known and everlasting name, Mahatma Gandhi was a man of hope and determination. He was one of the hundreds of protesters who fought for Indian independence from the British reign and fought for the rights of the poor. [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

University of Notre Dame

Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews

Home ›
Reviews ›

The Ethics of Nonviolence: Essays by Robert L. Holmes

Robert L. Holmes, The Ethics of Nonviolence: Essays by Robert L. Holmes , Predrag Cicovacki (ed.), Bloomsbury, 2013, 263pp., $34.95 (pbk), ISBN 9781623568054.

Reviewed by Andrew Fiala, California State University, Fresno

This is a collection of essays by Robert L. Holmes, a philosopher known primarily for his extensive body of work on nonviolence and war, including his influential book, On War and Morality (Princeton University Press, 1989). The essays include some of Holmes' early articles on American pragmatism and ethical theory. But its primary focus is later work, including some important material on the philosophy of nonviolence (some of it published previously in journals and books along with some previously unpublished material). The book concludes with a short essay on Holmes' teaching philosophy and an interview with the editor that provides some biographical material about Holmes' education and life.

While the earlier essays on pragmatism and ethical theory may be of interest to academic philosophers, and the later items would be of interest to those who know Holmes as a teacher or colleague, the primary focus of the volume is on the ethics of nonviolence. The essays on this topic are both readable and important. They would be of interest to a broad audience and not merely to academic philosophers. Indeed, these essays should be read and carefully considered by students of peace studies and peace activists.

One significant contribution is Holmes' is analysis of the difference between nonviolentism and pacifism. Indeed, it appears that he coined the term "nonviolentism" in a 1971 essay that is reprinted in this collection (157). According to Holmes, pacifism is a narrow perspective that is merely opposed to war, while nonviolentism is a broader perspective that is opposed in general to violence.

Holmes' account is a fine piece of analytic philosophy that reminds us that conceptual analysis matters. One concrete outcome of his analysis is the idea that one need not be an absolutist to be a pacifist or a nonviolentist. According Holmes, pacifists and nonviolentists get painted into a conceptual corner when they are thought to be absolutists. Absolute nonviolentism is easily overcome by imagined thought experiments in which a minor amount of violence is necessary in order to save a large number of people. Holmes concedes this point, admitting that absolute pacifism is "clearly untenable" (158).

Holmes' admission that pacifism is not appropriate for all conceivable worlds and in any conceivable circumstance may appear to doom his effort to defend nonviolence. And some may object that once Holmes makes this concession, continued discussion of nonviolentism becomes moot. Why bother to discuss nonviolentism when it won't work for the really hard cases?

But in fact, his admission of the limits of absolute moralizing is interesting as a meta-philosophical thesis, as a comment about absolutism in philosophy. And it links to his understanding of nonviolence as a way of life. Holmes connects the idea of nonviolence as a way of life with the tradition of virtue ethics -- and with non-Western sources such as Taoism. Holmes' goal is to describe a way of life in which nonviolence governs all of life, including both thought and deed.

Nonviolence in this maximalist sense does govern all of our life. Once we satisfy its requirements, we may in other respects act as we choose toward others. Even though I have stated it negatively, it has, for all practical purposes, a positive content. It tells us to be nonviolent . (174)

This is somewhat vague. A critic may worry -- as critics of virtue ethics often do -- that this is not very helpful when considering concrete cases. Such a retreat to virtue may not be readily accepted by absolutists who want clarity about moral principles. But Holmes fends of this sort of critique in his theoretical essays. In an essay with the polemical title "The Limited Relevance of Analytical Ethics to the Problems of Bioethics," Holmes aims to show that analytic ethics fails in important ways. In general Holmes holds that moral philosophy is situated in a broader context in which philosophers come to their work with a set of predispositions that are apparent even in the choice of methodology. And he points to a gap between the way philosophers proceed and the way the vast majority of people proceed, when reflecting on moral issues. What most of us want is a way of life and system of virtue -- not merely a decision procedure based on abstract principles.

This leads Holmes to conclude that academic philosophy is not very good at creating moral wisdom. Moral philosophizing attempts to hover free from value claims -- in attempting to be neutral -- and thus can end up being used to support immoral outcomes. A related point is made in Holmes' broader claim about the way that universities are too cozy with the military-industrial complex -- for example in supporting ROTC programs. While his criticism of ROTC was made in the early 1970's, we might note that ROTC still exists on campuses across the country, often free from criticism. It is worth considering whether the values embodied in academic philosophy and the larger academy are nonviolentist in Holmes' sense.

In the metaphilosophical and metaethical concerns of the earlier essays, Holmes clarifies the source of his thinking in American pragmatism (with special emphasis on Dewey). He also discusses the problem of finding a middle path between consequentialist and nonconsequentialist moral theory. And he criticizes philosophers' tendency to rely on imagined thought experiments.

He explains, for example, that most people are simply not absolutists, who hold to principles in the face of all possible counter-examples. He writes that although some philosophers believe that "far-fetched counterexamples" may crushingly refute absolute principles, "the philosopher's refutation of the philosopher's interpretation of the principle becomes conspicuously irrelevant to the issues in which ordinary people find themselves caught up" (57). Holmes' immediate target here is moral reasoning that occurs in applied ethics -- specifically Judith Thomson's widely read 1971 article "In Defense of Abortion." Holmes aims beyond the postulation of absolutist principles and attempted refutations of these by imagined counter-examples.

The imagined examples that are offered to refute pacifism are, for the most part irrelevant to Holmes' endeavor of describing and defending an ethic of nonviolence. He rejects an exclusive focus on "contrived cases, such as that of a solitary Gandhi assuming the lotus position before an attacking Nazi panzer division" (146). Holmes admits that killing could be justified in some rare situations. But such an admission does not help us make moral judgments in the real world of war and militarism. I think he is right about this. But one might worry that Holmes does not offer enough analysis of the concrete and ugly reality of war. For example, there is no discussion of post-traumatic stress disorder or suicide by soldiers or fragging -- let alone an account of war on children, widows, and the social fabric. Indeed, there is little here in terms of descriptions of the ugly reality of war that is often left out by defenders of militarism. Holmes may imagine that we already know that ugly reality. But his argument could be bolstered by more concrete detail.

One significant point Holmes makes is that much of the evil of the world -- and especially the evil of war -- is not deliberately intended. Holmes rejects the doctrine of double effect by noting that an exclusive focus on intention is insufficient. But he points toward a larger problem, which he names "the Paradox of Evil": "the greatest evils in the world are done by basically good people" (209). Truly evil people are usually only able to harm a few others. But the greatest harms are done by large social organizations that use good people to create massive suffering. Holmes suggests that the worst things happen when basically good people end up sacrificing for and supporting political and military systems. One reason for this is that they have been persuaded that nonviolentism is silly -- by those pernicious and fallacious arguments that consist primarily of contrived imagined cases.

Rather than dwelling on those contrived cases, Holmes emphasizes that we ought to work to develop plausible alternatives to violence and war. He imagines a nonviolent army or peaceforce, consisting of tens of thousands of trained persons, funded and educated at levels equivalent to that of the military. While it may seem that "nonviolent social defense" (as Holmes prefers to call it) is feckless in a world of military power, Holmes points out that there have been successful cases of nonviolent social transformation in recent history: in the Indian campaign for independence from Britain, in the American Civil Rights movement, in the demise of the Soviet Union, and in the end of apartheid in South Africa. This is all useful as a reminder of the fact that nonviolence can work. But one thing missing here is a concrete analysis of how and why nonviolent social revolutions work.

Holmes does argue that in order to complete the work of creating a "nonviolent American revolution" as he puts it, we ought to leave our violentist/realist assumptions about history behind and acknowledge that nonviolence can work to produce positive social change. For example, Holmes points out that national economies are grounded in value judgments and that we could create a nonviolent national economy, rather than our current militarized economy.

This points toward Holmes' basic optimism and idealism. Holmes suggest that our world is based in thought: "much of the world that most of us live in consists of embodied thought" (233). Injustices such as slavery are grounded upon a set of values and concepts that could be otherwise. One of the problems of the ubiquity of militarism in the United States is the feeling that military power is inevitable and normal. But Holmes points out that things could be different -- that we could imagine the social and political world differently and reconstitute it accordingly.

One significant problem is that we are miseducated about the usefulness of violence. Prevailing historical narratives make it appear that progress is usually made by the use of military power. But Holmes is at pains to point out that war and violence have often not worked. "We know that resort to war and violence for all of recorded history has not worked. It has not secured either peace or justice to the world" (197). While we often hear a story touting the usefulness of violence -- as in the Second World War narrative -- it turns out that in reality war merely prepares the way for future conflict -- as the Second World War gave way to the Cold War.

A further problem is that Holmes thinks that we defer too willingly to the narratives told by those in power and that we are too quick to give our loyalty to the state. Holmes espouses loyalty to the truth -- not loyalty to the state -- and a higher patriotism that is directed beyond borders. "It is from love of one's country, and for humankind generally, that a nonviolent transformation of society must proceed" (232). Running throughout his essays is a sort of anarchism, which Holmes sees in the ideas of those authors he admires: Thoreau, Tolstoy, and Gandhi. Holmes concludes, "the consistent and thoroughgoing nonviolentist, as Tolstoy saw, will be an anarchist" (180). To support this idea, Holmes reminds us that there is nothing permanent or sacred about the system of nation-states. "Nation-states are not part of the nature of things. They certainly are not sacrosanct. If they perpetuate ways of thinking that foster division and enmity among peoples, ways should be sought to transcend them" (120).

The just war tradition and political realism appear to go astray when they turn the state into an end in itself, rather than viewing it as a means to be used to create positive social living. Holmes locates one source of this in Augustine, who compromised so much with state power that he ended up closer to Hobbes than to Jesus -- a line of political realism that Holmes claims is picked up by Reinhold Niebuhr.

This train of thought points toward a critique of the logic of militaristic nation-states, which will tend to grow in power and centralized control. This leads to what Holmes calls the "garrison mentality" and "the garrison state" (114). He maintains that under the guise of a realist interpretation of history we end up assimilating military values, thinking that we can solve both international and domestic problems through the use of military tactics. But the development of the garrison state chained to a permanent war economy is an impending disaster, especially in a democracy. Holmes suggests, "This most likely would not happen by design, but gradually, almost imperceptibly, through prolonged breathing of the air of militarism, deceptively scented by the language of democratic values" (114). But in the long run, the growth of militarism comes at the expense of democracy. These prescient ideas were originally published in 1998, prior to 9/11, the war on terrorism, and recent revelations about the growing extent of security agencies and spying. The perceptive insight of Holmes' remarks reminds us that the perspective of nonviolentism is a valuable one, which helps to provide a critical lens on the world.

In general, this book provides a useful collection of essays on the ethics of nonviolence. Some of the earlier essays can be seen as a bit academic and boring. But, as noted above, the metaphilosophical considerations found in these earlier essays are clearly connected to the more concrete considerations on the ethics and philosophy of nonviolence. If one thing is missing, it is a more extensive practical account of how and why nonviolence works. Holmes mentions that some of the evidence for his claims about the effectiveness of nonviolence can be found in the work of authors such as Gene Sharp. However, there are very few details. Nor is there much in terms of a description of what a nonviolent way of life would look like. Would it be vegetarian? Would it include religion? Would a nonviolentist play violent video games or films? How would nonviolence impact gender relations? Would a nonviolentist with anarchist sympathies such as Holmes retreat to a 21 st century version of Walden Pond? Or would nonviolence lead us to a life of activism and social protest? One hopes that Holmes may take up the practical particulars of a life of nonviolence in future work.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

The Non-Violent Path towards Truth

2013, Nandinivoice.org (http://nandinivoice.org/all-india-essay-competition-for-college-students-on-gandhian-philosophy/)

Non-violence is neither an act of cowardice nor compromise; rather it is a way of life in itself – a philosophy to realize man’s true nature. Gandhi personified this message in life and spirit. This essay highlights the essence of non-violent attitude and, through the Gandhian framework, shows how it logically leads to the path of truth. The truth that shall set us free, from maladies of 'misconceived notions’ and ‘chaotic understanding of events’. Realizing this fact is imperative towards engendering harmony in today’s world.

Related Papers

IJAR Indexing

This paper demonstrates that the political theory of Mahatma Gandhi provides us a novel way to understand and arbitrate the conflict among moral projects. Gandhi offers us a vision of political action that insists on the viability of the search for truth and the implicit possibility of adjudicating among competing claims to truth. His vision also presents a more complex and realistic understanding, than some other contemporary pluralists, of political philosophy and of political life itself. In an increasingly multicultural world, political theory is presented with perhaps it’s most vigorous challenge yet. As radically different moral projects confront one another, the problem of competing claims of truth arising from particular views of the human good remains crucial for political philosophy and political action. Recent events have demonstrated that the problem is far from being solved and that its implications are more far-reaching than the domestic politics of industrialized nations. As the problem of violence has also become coterminous with issues of pluralism, many have advocated the banishing of truth claims from politics altogether. Political theorists have struggled to confront this problem through a variety of conceptual lenses. Debates pertaining to the politics of multiculturalism, tolerance, or recognition have all been concerned with the question of pluralism as one of the most urgent facts of political life, in need of both theoretical and practical illumination.

SMART M O V E S J O U R N A L IJELLH

The present paper discusses the philosophy of ‘nonviolence’ (ahimsa) of Mahatma Gandhi, which he devised as a weapon to fight the brute forces of violence and hatred, hailing it as the only way to peace. Gandhi based his philosophy of nonviolence on the principle of love for all and hatred for none. He thought violence as an act caused to a person directly or indirectly, denying him his legitimate rights in the society by force, injury or deception. Gandhi’s nonviolence means avoiding violent means to achieve one’s end, howsoever, lofty it might be, as he firmly believed that the use of violence, even if in the name of achieving a justifiable end was not good, as it would bring more violence. He firmly adhered to the philosophy of Gita that preaches to follow the rightful path, remaining oblivious of its outcome. Gandhi used nonviolence in both his personal and political life and used it first in South Africa effectively and back home he applied it in India against the British with far more astounding success, as it proved supremely useful and efficacious in liberating the country from the British servitude. However, he never tried to use it as a political tactic to embarrass the opponent or to take undue

IOSR Journals

isara solutions

International Res Jour Managt Socio Human

We find that much development and great achievements have been made in science and technology for human upliftment . These are external developments, but we have no internal or psychological development lack of which is the cause of violence . Many humanist thinkers and philosophers have contributed to build up a peaceful and perfect society. But there is a little impact of their message on human civilization . But with the help of modern science and technology , some political and social leaders of the world are performing inhuman actions day by day generating disintegration, violence, terrorism, war at national, international , religious, social and political levels .

Professor Ravi P Bhatia

There are serious problems of deprivation, poverty, lack of educational and health facilities, marginalization and victimization of millions of people in many parts of the world including India where a vast majority of the population are adversely affected. Although many sections of this population suffer silently, occasionally they rise in protest and commit violence on the state and others individuals. We discuss the nature of different forms of violence and the principal factors leading to conflict and violence. Examples of these diverse forms of violence as well as the violence usually termed as Maoist or Naxal violence witnessed in certain tribal or indigenous areas of India, are also considered. Mahatma Gandhi emphasized truth, non-violence and peace and advocated a people-centred approach to development. He also proposed suitable education and economic development programmes and action that would help in reduction of disparities and poverty, rural uplift, environmental protection and amity between different religions. He led a simple life and was particular about limiting one’s wants and needs. We discuss the relevance of the Gandhian principles of truth, Satyagraha, non-violence, proper educational system and religious tolerance and argue that these principles can be applied even in the contemporary situation for reduction of conflict and violence by advancing the welfare of deprived sections of people, protection of the environment and by promoting peace and understanding amongst peoples. These principles have universal validity and have been successfully adopted by several countries and peoples.

Brian C Barnett

A concise open-access teaching resource featuring essential selections from Gandhi on the philosophy of nonviolence. The book includes: a preface, brief explanatory notes, supplementary boxes containing related philosophical material, images and videos, an appendix on post-Gandhian nonviolence, questions for reflection/discussion, and suggestions for further study.

The New Leam

Amman Madan

A discussion and review of the book "The Science of Peace" by Shanta Khanna Aggarwal.

Dwaipayan Sen

Political and social movements in South Africa, the United States of America, Germany, Myanmar, India, and elsewhere, have drawn inspiration from the non-violent political techniques advocated by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi during his leadership of the anti-colonial struggle for Indian freedom from British colonial rule. This course charts a global history of Gandhi's thought about non-violence and its expression in civil disobedience and resistance movements both in India and the world. Organized in three modules, the first situates Gandhi through consideration of the diverse sources of his own historical and ideological formation; the second examines the historical contexts and practices through which non-violence acquired meaning for him and considers important critiques; the third explores the various afterlives of Gandhian politics in movements throughout the world. We will examine autobiography and biography, Gandhi's collected works, various types of primary source, political, social, and intellectual history, and audiovisual materials. In addition to widely disseminated narratives of Gandhi as a symbol of non-violence, the course will closely attend to the deep contradictions concerning race, caste, gender, and class that characterized his thought and action. By unsettling conventional accounts of his significance, we will grapple with the problem of how to make sense of his troubled legacy.

Vetrickarthick Rajarathinam

In an important but often overlooked 1988 paper, Vandana Shiva described the impact of dominant forms of reductionist models of scientific knowledge as ‘epistemological violence’. The impact of the application of such approaches as the basis of social change, particularly in the case of development programmes, was highlighted as socially divisive and culturally destructive. In the intervening years, the impact of global capitalism and the development of more novel forms of social and cultural imperialism have only exacerbated the condition that Shiva identified. Whilst Gandhian methods of nonviolence are comfortably aligned with processes of reconciliation and harmonisation in the aims of reducing conflict, it is all too easily overlooked that they derive from a process designed to confront and to remove imperial rule, and to challenge the underpinning conceptualisation which divides the world into the ruler and the potential subject. In the context of the hegemony of contemporary global capital, therefore, it is important to reinterpret the significance of Gandhian nonviolence as a means by which the reductionist epistemology of global capital, whereby ultimate value and meaning are reduced to economic units, can be also be challenged and confronted. A further impact of this utilitarian arbitration of values is that it reshapes other consideration of the good life except insofar as it conforms to the dominant rationality. This paper, therefore looks towards the development of Gandhian nonviolence not simply as technique or means (although these are by no means unimportant), but as an emancipatory praxis - a critical process of emancipation. Reductionist epistemologies, whether scientific, political or economic imply conditions of subordination, where dominant knowledges are able to reproduce themselves by denying the validity of alternative experience, explanation and valuation. Nonviolence as theory and practice is hereby read as a transformative framework that refutes the subordination of any social ‘other’.

RELATED PAPERS

Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden

Revue Historique Des Armees

Gergely Sallay

Datenschutz und Datensicherheit - DuD

Canadian Institute of Food Science and Technology Journal

Yew-Min Tzeng

Studia Universitatis Moldaviae: Stiinte Umanistice

István Bandi

Aang Sutrisna

Politique européenne

Florence Deloche-Gaudez

Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of the Brazilian Geophysical Society&Expogef

Eduarda araujo

Mark Measures

Luis Arturo Gómez Malagón

Sunghyun KANG

The Review of Laser Engineering

Alexandra Economou

Anthropologica

Montserrat Ventura Oller

Bangladesh Journal of Anatomy

rubina sultana

Aryaaa Anfield

Rheologica Acta

Walter Blondel

Jurnal Pusat Inovasi Masyarakat (PIM)

Ananda Oktaviani

Revista Habanera De Ciencias Medicas

Alberto Osorio Reyes

Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.

Alain Moissette

Transmodernity: Journal of Peripheral Cultural Production of the Luso-Hispanic World

Fernando Valerio-Holguín

MATTER: International Journal of Science and Technology

Marwa Hisham Salem

Johan Rombang

办理达尔豪斯大学毕业证书文凭学位证书购买加拿大DU毕业证Diploma在读证明

Topics in Heterocyclic Chemistry

Nataliya Belskaya

Your Article Library

Truth and non-violence: a foundation of a new world order.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Truth and Non-Violence: A Foundation of a New World Order!

The ultimate objective of any society is to produce essential goods and to distribute them by following a just and an egalitarian procedure. Various institutions of any society could use different means for this purpose. Culture of a society depends on the nature of these means.

If these means are truthful, just and healthy, then the society emerged would surely be a constructive one. It reflects that only an ideal means would lead to an ideal society. Therefore, truth and non-violence are playing an utmost important role in Gandhian philosophy.

Based on the principles of truth and non-violence, what kind of a New World Order would emerge there? The article gives an extensive illustration on that. For that purpose it is divided into two parts while the first part deals with the basic principles of truth and non-violence, the second part describes nature of politics, economics, religion, education and position of women in this new world order.

Truth and Non-Violence in Gandhian Philosophy :

Truth and non-violence have been two foundational stones of Gandhian philosophy. Truth is the end and non-violence is the means to achieve this end. These are the two guiding principles for Gandhi. His whole life was devoted to these two principles.

To analysis the principle of truth in Gandhian philosophy, we can have three perspectives:

i. Etymological perspective,

ii. Religious perspective, and

iii. Moral perspective.

Let us start with the ethnological perspective. It is concerned with the origin of the meaning of the term truth, i.e., satya. The word ‘sat’ is employed in the sense of reality, goodness or praiseworthy action. Steadfastness in sacrifice, penance, and gift are also called sat, and so many actions for such purpose are called sat.

Whatever offering or gift is made, whatever rite is observed, without faith, is called asset. From the etymological perspective, what really is, what really can be said, and what really is to be done, in this worldly life, is called satya. Since, only truth is real, for Gandhi, it must be the ultimate objective of our life.

Accordingly:

Devotion to this truth is the sole justification for our existence. All our activities should be very breath of our being. When once this state in the pilgrims’ process is reached, all other rules of correct living will come without effort and obedience to them will be instructive. There should be Truth in thought. Truth in speech and Truth in action. To a man who has realized this truth in its fullness, nothing else remains to be known because all knowledge is necessarily included in it.

For Gandhi, essence of life lies in its simplicity and truth is the instrument, the medium to achieve it. An individual’s all small or big efforts are directed by truth only. As this is the truth, which will make an individual truthful in real sense of the term. Upanishads also correspond closely to these ideas. According to Mundaka Upanishad, “Truth prevails and not untruth”. Similarly, Taittiriya Upanishad says, “Speak the truth, observe duty, do not swerve from truth”.

The Gandhian conception of truth was equally influenced by all these ancient Indian religious-cum-philosophical writings. Truthfulness is the only way which makes the seeker after truth a truthful person. Because truth is the ultimate knowledge, if we once learn how to apply this never-failing test of truth, we will at once be able to find out what is worth reading. Thus, etymologically only truth exists. To attain this truth is the ultimate objective of our life.

The real essence of life resides in this truth only. One who realizes this truth, nothing remains to be known because truth is the ultimate ruling authority. But one may raise this question: what is the inherent meaning of this truth? In which form we should accept it and how to obtain it? The religious perspective will satisfy all these queries in its fullest sense.

All our religious texts, scriptures, institutions and teachers accept only one existence on this earth and that is of God. Thus, if truth means sense of being or to be existed, then obviously it means God. For Gandhi, “to realize God, to realize the self and to realize truth are three experiences for the same development.” In his earlier days, Gandhi used to say that God is truth. It means to know about truth, one has to know God first.

For Gandhi:

God is self existent all knowing living force, which inheres every other force known to the world. God is even more intangible then other. He is both imminent and transcendent. In Gandhian philosophy the idea of God is explained from scientific, moral and philosophic perspectives.

Like a scientist, who usually propounds his thoughts on the basis of cause and effect relationship, Gandhi too explains if our beings are there along with our fathers and grandfathers then we are bound to accept this truth that there does also exist the father of the whole universe.

He again illustrates that there is a system in this world through which the whole universe of living beings is regulated. This system cannot be an abstract and immortal because abstract laws would not be applicable on living beings. And this law and system is nothing but the God himself. He himself is the law and the regulator of those laws.

According to Gandhi:

I do dimly perceive that whilst everything around me is ever changing all that change a living power that is changeless, that hold all together that creates, dissolves and regrets. This informing power and spirit is God. And since nothing else I see merely alone is.

And is this power benevolent or malevolent? See it as purely benevolent, for I can see in the midst of untruth, truth persists, in the midst of darkness, light persists. Hence, I gather that God is life, Truth and Light. He is love. He is the Supreme God.

In this manner, as a scientist, Gandhi tries his best to define the concept of God within the criteria of universally accepted definition by keeping aside all community, religion, time and space based definitions. But, it does not mean that universal-scientific-rational definition of God in Gandhian philosophy ignores the importance of individualistic perspective. Gandhian philosophy even sees the God from moral perspective.

There are innumerable definitions of God, because His manifestations are innumerable. They overwhelm me with wonder and are for a moment stun me. But I worship God as Truth only. I have not yet found him, but I am seeking after him.

Accordingly, God can be seen from different perspectives. Even for theists its existence is there. “You may call yourself an atheist, but so long as you feel akin with mankind you accept God in practice. While defining God, sometimes, Gandhi also feels like opportunist thinkers.

But Gandhi himself explains the reason in the following manner:

God is the indefinable something that we shall follow but do not know. To me God is Truth and Love; God is ethics and morality; God is fearlessness. God is source of light and life and yet He is above and beyond all these. God is conscience. He is even the atheism of the atheist … he embodies to those who need His touch.

He is purest essence. He simply is to those who have faith. He is all things to all man. He is in us and yet above and beyond us … He is long suffering. He is patient but He is also terrible … with Him ignorance is no essence. And withal He is ever forgiving for He always given us the chances to repent.

He is the greatest democrat the world knows, for He leaves us ‘unfettered’ to make our choice between evil and good. He is the greatest tyrant ever known, for He often dashes the cup from our lips and under the cover of the freewill leaves us a margin so wholly inadequate as to provide only mirth to himself… Therefore, Hinduism calls it all His sport.

Thus, like a spiritual thinker, Gandhi assumes God as knowledge, love, compassion, inner-consciousness, logic-reason etc. Not only this, but for him the reason and logical perception of atheists is also another form of God. And, ultimately, he said, “If it is possible for the human tongue to give the fullest description of God, I have come to the conclusion that for myself, God is Truth.” It shows that for Gandhi God can be defined from individualistic, pluralistic and in so many different universalistic perspectives.

Bhikhu Parekh, in his Gandhi’s Political Philosophy:

A Critical Examination says that earlier Gandhi used the term ‘Brahman’. But he was somewhat uneasy with its historical association and preferred to use such terms as eternal principle, supreme consciousness or intelligence, mysterious force and cosmic power, spirit or shakti.

Later, he preferred to call it satya or truth and thought that this was its only correct and fully significant description. Following Indian philosophical tradition, Gandhi used the term ‘satya’ to mean the eternal and unchanging, what alone persists in the midst of change and holds the universe together. For a long time he said that “God is Truth”, implying both that truth was one of God’s many properties and that the concept of God was logically prior to that of truth. In 1926, he reversed the proposition and said that truth is God. He regarded this as one of his most important discoveries and thought that it crystallized his years of grouping.

The new proposition implied that the concept of truth was prior to that of God, and that calling it God did not add anything new to it but only made it more concrete and comprehensible to the human mind. By following the norms of the Indian thinkers, Gandhi intended to distinguish between the impersonal and personal God, and preferred to call the Nirguna Brahman. Since the term ‘truth’ is likely to create confusion I shall use the more familiar terms cosmic spirit or power.

For Gandhi, the Brahman, truth or cosmic spirit was nirguna, i.e., beyond all qualities, including the moral. As he put it, “Fundamentally, God is indescribable in words …. The qualities we attribute to God with the purest of motives are true for us but fundamentally false.” And again beyond the personal God there is formless essence which our reason cannot comprehend.

The formless essence or cosmic spirit was not a ‘personal being’, and to think that it was represented a mistaken and ‘inferior’ conception of its nature. Although the cosmic power was without qualities, including personality, Gandhi argued that a limited being as man found it difficult to avoid attributing them to and personalizing it.

First, the human mind was so used the world of qualities that it did not find it easy to think in non-qualitative terms.

Second, man was not only thinking but also a feeling being and the ‘head’ and ‘heart’ had different requirements.

The quality-free cosmic power satisfied the head but was too remote, abstract and detached to satisfy the heart. The heart required a being with heart, one who could understand and respond to the language of feeling.

Even by accepting the various definitions and perceptions of truth discussed as above, Gandhian philosophy also present a universal notion of truth. Accordingly, “what is Truth?” “A difficult question, but I have solved it for myself by saying that it is what the voice within tells you. How then, you ask different people think of different and contrary truth? Well, seeing that the human mind works through innumerable media and that the evolution of the human mind is not the same for all, it follows that what may be truth for one may be untruth for another, and hence those who have made their experiments have come to the conclusion that there are certain condition to be observed in making those experiments….

It is because we have at the present moment everybody claiming the right of conscience without going through any discipline what so-even that there is so much untruth being delivered to a bewildered world. All that I can do true humility present to you is that truth is not to be found by anybody who has not got an abundant sense of humility. If you would swim on the bosom of ocean of Truth you must reduce yourself to a zero.”

It means, for Gandhi, there is no guarantee that we find the truth in any matter. But a continued selfless devotion in search of truth will make the seeker aware of errors and thus lead him further towards truth. What may appear as truth to one person will often appear untruth to another person. But that need not worry the seeker. Where there is honest effort, it will be realized that what appears to be different truth is like the countless and apparently different leaves of the same tree.

Does Not God Himself appear to difficult individuals in different aspects? But truth is the right designation of God. Hence, there is nothing wrong in everyone following truth according to his light. Indeed, it is a duty to do so.

That is why, Gandhi, while presenting the solution, suggested that “the golden rule of conduct… is mutual toleration, seeing that we will never all think alike and we shall see Truth in fragment and from different angles of vision. Conscience is not the something for all. Whilst, therefore, it is a good guide for individual conduct, imposition of that conduct upon all will be an insufferable interference with everybody’s freedom of conscience.”

Thus, the etymological and ontological explanations reveal the physical and eternal meaning of truth. Now one may ask another question, how to achieve this truth which is both relative as well as absolute in nature. For Gandhi, life is the name of dialectics. Life persists in continuous experiments and consequent development. Absolute truth is the ultimate truth to be achieved. It is the eternal reality but it is not easy to achieve because human mind has its over limitations. Relative truth is the way towards absolute truth.

So long, according to Gandhi, “I must hold by the relative truth as I have conceived it. That relative truth must, meanwhile, be my beacon, my shield and buckler. Though this path is narrow and sharp as razor’s edge, for me, it has been the quickest and easiest. Even my Himalayan blunders have seemed trifling to me because I have kept strictly to this path. For the path has saved me from coming to grief, and I have gone forward according to my light.”

Two things are coming in mind at the same time. Firstly, it is only the continuous practice through which this absolute truth would be achieved. And secondly, the extent to which an individual is relating this absolute truth with his/her relative truth to that extent she/he will orient towards absolute truth.

That is why; this relative truth is different to different people. Therefore, Gandhi used to say that relative truth is the means to achieve the absolute truth. Thus, in Gandhian philosophy, we have both permanent and dynamic nature truth. Because, Gandhi never assumed that one’s truth is the ultimate truth.

Now we have knowledge about different meanings of truth, yet it is not easy to realize or internalize this truth in real sense of the term. Realization of truth is a continuous process for which moral values are essentially required to inculcate. Because for Gandhi “to realize God” is another expression for “to become God” and “to face God”.

Gandhi used to say, “I am but a seeker after truth. I claim to have found a way to it. I claim to be making a ceaseless effort to find it. But I admit that I have not yet found it. To find truth completely is to realize oneself and one’s destiny, to become perfect. I am painfully conscious of my imperfections and therein lies all the strength I possess, because it is a rare thing for a man to know his own limitations.

When the egotism-ego vanishes, something else grows that ingredient of the person that tends to identify itself with God, with humanity, all that lives. Therefore, once the reduction of one’s egotism self is complete, one comes face to face with God, find truth, and realizes the universal-self, the Self. The way of humanity is essentially the way of reducing egotism.

In Gandhian philosophy the concept of ‘self is considered from two perspectives: one is ‘universal self and second is ‘individual self. For Gandhian philosophy, the terms such as ‘the universal self can scarcely be given experimental meaning without resource of psychological and social processes of intense identification.

They cannot only be facilitated by the practice of yoga, but also by various kinds of voluntary social work as these are now carried out by dedicated people in many countries. According to Arne Naess, the recent development in psychiatry and psychology favouring reciprocity in the therapist-patient relation helps to make the identification easier.

There is an intimate relation between a belief in the ultimate oneness of all that lives and the belief that one cannot reach one’s own complete freedom without bringing about the freedom of others, or remove all feelings of pain without relieving the pain of others.

Gandhi says:

I do not believe … that an individual may gain spiritually and those who surround him suffer. I believe in advita (non-duality), I believe in the essentially unity of man and, for that matter, of all that lies. Therefore, I believe that if one man gain spiritually, the whole world gains with him and, if one man fall, the whole world fall to that extent.

Gandhi’s tendency towards collectivism and egalitarianism is beautifully expressed in the following words:

A drop torn from the ocean perishes without doing any good. If it remains a part of the ocean, it shares the glory of carrying on its bosom a fleet of mighty ships. And, an individual self, the seeker after truth, can become a universal self by putting himself last among his fellow creatures. Inculcated moral values will impoverish a being in this way of becoming a universal being.

Hence, it can be said that truth is the sovereign principle. It is ultimate reality. It is the fundamental principle of all thought and action. Though it is ultimate and absolute by nature, even then, each and every living being can achieve it. A partial knowledge of this truth will never allow us to be perfect.

Hence, the different perspectives of truth in Gandhian philosophy, such as etymological perspective, religious perspective and moral perspective, try to give a complete meaning of truth. If etymological perspective believes in the existence of truth being the only reality, the religious perspective teaches the lesson that God is truth.

Whereas moral perspective says that God, love, compassion, motherhood etc. are the different shades of truth. Truth is the only universal principle which is prevailing everywhere. Moral perspective of truth encompasses all those different aspects of truth. A seeker after truth will never assume his truth as ultimate truth and thus will have respect for other’s truth also.

In this untruthful social order which is prevailing everywhere these days, Gandhi presents a very consistent, balanced, universally accepted definition of truth, which is the absolute reality and thus the ultimate goal of human life. It was the only purpose of all experiments which Gandhi did throughout his life. That is why, in his philosophy of ideal life, truth plays an important role.

Non-violence (Ahimsa):

For Gandhi, “It is practically impossible to disentangle Truth and non-violence. They are like the two sides of a coin, or rather of a smooth, unstamped metallic disc “who can say”, he asks “which is the observe, and which is the reverse.” Because of the fact, he says, “means and ends are convertible term in my philosophy of life. They say ends are after all everything. I would say, means are after all everything. As the means so the ends. There is no wall of separation between means and ends.

Indeed, the creator has given us control (and that to very limited) over means none over the ends. Realization of the goal is in exact proportion to that means. This is a proportion that admits of no expectations.” For Gandhi, to get the truth, ahimsa is the only instrument.

In his own words:

Ahimsa is my God. And Truth is my God. When I look for Ahimsa, Truth says find it out through me, when I look for Truth, Ahimsa says find it out through me. In fact, all the human values of a humanitarian society are inspired by the principle of ahimsa. In every religion, whether it is Hinduism, Buddhism or Jainism, this principle of ahimsa has played a very important role. In Indian philosophical tradition, this has been surviving since times immemorial.

Chandopnishad, Patanjali Yoga Sutras, and in so many philosophical-intellectual traditions of India, Ahimsa has a very important place. Similarly, in the Jain philosophy, Ahimsa is assumed to be a big vow. In Trithankar Mahavir Swami’s words, “Ahimsa is a highest religion which is regulated by tolerance and strict practice of self-discipline.”

According to Jainism, all religions are the different branches of the same tree. The ultimate objective of all religions is self-realization or self-actualization. For Mahavir Swami, if the principle of ahimsa is required for an individual to regulate his/her life, then socially it is required just to secure the social life.

Accordingly, we are all part of an ultimate superpower. Whatever the sufferings, agonies and the problems we are facing in our life are also there in other’s life. We should try to understand this reality and ahimsa will teach us the importance of life. That is why; ahimsa is also called as a very strict principle of life.

Even in Buddhist tradition ahimsa plays important and centrifugal role. It is said in this tradition that ahimsa implies not to give injury to anyone by speech and action. The follower of this principle will never create problem for anyone and not even encourage anyone else to do so. Because to give injury or to encourage anyone for injury both are recorded as himsa.

Hence, in the philosophies of life, which were evolved with the evolution of human civilization in Indian society, ahimsa plays a very important and vibrant role. Its concept and norms are continuously changing according to the societal changes.

The Gandhian philosophy has its own significance to establish the notion of ahimsa in the modem context. By keeping all these issues in mind, we can say that for Gandhi, ahimsa was the biggest dharma and highest form of morality. It is the purest means to attain the end, i.e., God and truth.

Gandhi used to say:

By instinct I have been truthful, but not non-violent … I was capable of sacrificing non-violence for the sake of truth. In fact, it was in the course of my pursuit of Truth that I discovered non-violence. Gandhi accepted that truth is the end and ahimsa is the means.

The concept of ahimsa in Gandhian philosophy can be explained from two perspectives:

i. Negative ahimsa, and

ii. Positive ahimsa.

Negative Ahimsa :

From the negative perspective ahimsa means ‘a’+’himsa’, which again means, absence of himsa. The word is correctively written: hinsa or hinsa, meaning harming, hurting, injuring, from the root hins, harm, hurt, injure, slay…. The word hin may in turn have been a form of the verbal root han, which has a large number of meanings: strike, smite, slay, kill, destroy, dispel (darkness) etc. These meanings seem on the whole to be more predominantly physical than those of himsa. It reflects, in general conception, ahimsa means avoiding injury to anything on earth in thought, word or deed. But in this absolute sense, the applicability of ahimsa is not possible at all. Even Gandhi accepted this.

Perfect non-violence is impossible so long as we exist physically, for we would want some space at least to occupy. Perfect non-violence whilst you are inhabiting the body is only a theory like Euclid’s point or straight line, but we have to endeavor every moment of our lives.

If we turn our eyes to the time of which history has any record down to our own time, we shall find that man has been steadily progressing towards ahimsa. Our remote ancestors were cannibals. Then came a time when they were fed up with cannibalism and began to live on chase. Next came a stage when man was ashamed of leading the life of a wandering hunter.

He, therefore, took to agriculture and depended principally on mother earth for his food. Thus, from being a nomad he settled down to civilized stable life, founded villages and towns and from member of a family he became member of a community and a nation. All these are signs of progressive ahimsa and diminishing himsa.

Had it been otherwise, the human species should have been extinct by now, even as many of the lower species have disappeared. Prophets and avatars have also taught the lesson of ahimsa more or less. Not one should it be otherwise? Himsa does not need to be taught. Man as animal is violent, but, as spirit is non-violent.

The moment he awakes to the spirit within, he cannot remain violent. Either he progresses towards ahimsa or rushes to his doom. That is why, the prophets and avatars have taught us the lessons of truth, harmony, brotherhood, justice, etc., which are all attributes of ahimsa. Thus, evidences of the history prove it very well that in our life some himsa is inevitably essential. It is not possible to lead a life without himsa. Therefore, Gandhi explained the difference between himsa and ahimsa in detail. Firstly, to sustain a life, some himsa is essentially required and that must be exempted.

In Gandhi’s words:

Taking life may be a duty. We do destroy as much life as we think necessary for sustaining our body. Thus, for food we take life, vegetable and other, and for health we destroy mosquitoes and the like by the use of disinfectants etc. and we do not think that we are guilty of irreligious in doing so … for the benefit of the species we kill carnivorous beasts…

Secondly, to protect shelters if slaughter is required, then himsa can exempted.

In Gandhi’s own words:

Even man slaughter may be necessary in certain cases. Suppose a man runs amuck and goes furiously about, sword in hand and killing anyone that comes in his way and no one dares to capture him alive. Anyone who dispatches this lunatic will earn the gratitude of the community and be regarded as a benevolent man.

Thirdly, to take the life of a person, who is struggling for his life, is not himsa.

I see that there is an initiative horror of killing living beings under any circumstances whatever. For instance, an alternative has been suggested in the shape of confining ever rabid dogs in a certain place and allowing them to die a slow death.

Now my idea of compassion makes this impossible for me. I cannot for a moment bear to see a dog or for that matter any other living being, helplessly, suffering the torture of a slow death. I do not kill a human being thus circumstanced because I have more helpful remedies. I should kill a dog similarly situated because in its case I am without a remedy.

Further, he added:

Should my child be attacked with rabies and there was no helpful remedy to relieve his agony, I should consider it my duty to take his life. Fatalism has its limits. We leave things to fate after exhausting all the remedies. One of the remedies and the final one to relieve the agony of a tortured child are to take his life.

All these statements prove that life itself involves so many violence but we have to choose the path of least violence. And negative concept of ahimsa in Gandhian philosophy tells us how to lead a non-violence life.

Positive Ahimsa :

“In its positive form, ahimsa means the largest love, greatest charity. If I am a follower of ahimsa, I must love my enemy. I must apply the same rules to the wrong-doer who is my enemy or a stranger to me, as I would do to my wrong-doing father or son. This active ahimsa necessarily includes truth and fearlessness. As man cannot deceive the loved one, he does not fear or frighten him or her.

Gift of life is the greatest of all gift; a man who gives it in reality, disarms all hostility. He has paved the way for an honorable understanding. And none who is himself subject to fear can bestow that gift. He must therefore be himself fearless. A man cannot then practice Ahimsa and be a coward at the same time. The practice of Ahimsa calls forth the greatest courage… For Gandhi, ahimsa really means that “you may not offend anybody; you may not harbour an uncharitable thought even in connection with one who may consider himself to be your enemy..”

Even all the scriptures of the world have registered emphatic and unequivocal testimony in favour of non-violence being practised by all, not merely singly but collectively as well. In all humanity, Gandhi had often felt that having no axes to grind and having by nature a detached mind, he gives a true interpretation of the Hindu, Islamic or other scriptures. For this humble claim, Gandhi anticipated the forgiveness of Sanatanists, Christians and Mussalmans.”

Defining the very concept of ahimsa in its positive form, Gandhi said: “Having flung aside the sword, there is nothing except the cup of love which I can offer to those who oppose me. It is by offering that cup that I expect to draw them close to me. I cannot think of permanent enmity between man and man and believing as I do in the theory of rebirth, I live in the hope that if not in this birth, in some other birth, I shall be able to hug all humanity in friendly embrace.”

It shows that by ahimsa Gandhi not only means avoiding injury to anything or anyone on earth in thought, words or deed, but it also implies active and creative love, charity, humanity etc. in order to create a peaceful, respectful and dignified world order.

Characteristics of the Devotee of Ahimsa :

We have explained the term ‘ahimsa’ above in a very wide spectrum from both negative and positive perspectives. But it is also essential to discuss about the characteristics of the devotee of ahimsa, as it will elaborate the meaning of the term in a more comprehensive manner. The first characteristic of a true devotee of ahimsa is love. Love in the strongest force the world possesses and yet it is the humblest imaginable.

Ahimsa, in the form of love, is also related to other characteristics. It is ahimsa, from where the senses of forgiveness, generosity, tolerance, love etc. have its important role to play. That is why, Gandhi used to say that without ahimsa it is difficult to achieve the end of truth. But this love does not mean to love only your friends and fellow-beings.

In Gandhi’s words, “It is no non-violence if we merely love those that love us. It is non-violence only when we love those that hate us. I know how difficult it is to follow this grand law of love. But are not all great and good things difficult to do? Love of hater is the most difficult of all. But by the grace of God even this most difficult thing becomes easy to accomplish if we want to do it.” Gandhi assumes that God looks after us due to this love only. Hence, love is the first and foremost characteristic of the devotee of ahimsa.

He who seeks refuge in God ought to have a glimpse of the Atma that transcends the body; and the moment one has a glimpse of the imperishable Atma, one sheds the love of the imperishable body. Training in non-violence is thus diametrically opposed to training in violence. Violence is needed for the protection of things external; non-violence is needed for the protection of the Atma, for the protection of one’s honour.

In his manner, as a true devotee of the principle of ahimsa, Gandhi tried to flourish both the internal as well as external aspects of human personality. To inculcate this sense of ahimsa was his ultimate objective. Because, only a sensitive being will able to build a human society, which will be an ideal society in its own way. Further, fearlessness and self-confidence are other qualities of a devotee of ahimsa. In Gandhi’s words, “without fearlessness and self-confidence, ahimsa is not possible.”

He further says:

Non-violence and cowardice go ill together. I can imagine a fully armed man to be at heart a coward. Possession of arms implies an element of fear, if not cowardice. But true non-violence is impossibility without the possession of unadulterated fearlessness. My creed of non-violence is an extremely active force. It has no room for cowardice or even weakness.

There is hope for a violent man to be some day non-violent, but there is none for a coward. I have therefore said more than once in these pages that if we do not know how to defend ourselves, our women and our places of worship by the force of suffering, i.e., non-violence, we must, if we are men, be at least able to defend all these by fighting.

For Gandhi, cowards can never be moral because they are uncommitted to their own integrity or moral projects, unless it is safe or convenient. Insisting that a person’s autonomy is always paramount, Gandhi repeatedly argues that open, straightforward violence on behalf of one’s own integrity is preferable to running away, but non-violence is superior to both.

Where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advice violence. Thus, when my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him that it was his duty to defend me even by using violence.

It shows, though Gandhi accepts the courage and bravery of soldiers, yet he finds the soldier’s courage is defective, incomplete and inferior to that of the Satyagrahi because the possession of arms implies an element of fear. But, true non-violence is impossibility without the possession of unadulterated fearlessness. Gandhi accepts fear but only in one condition and that is the fear of God.

The votary of ahimsa has only one fear that is of God. He who seeks refuge in God ought to have a glimpse of the Atma that transcends the body; and the moment one has a glimpse of the imperishable Atma one sheds the love of the perishable body.

In this way, ahimsa is a quality of Atma, which consists of the further qualities of love, generosity, fearlessness or in its holistic sense God itself. It does not mean not to fight against injustice and cruelty, but it means all these have to be avoided by conducive and truthful means. And it would be possible if the follower of ahimsa has proper control over his action and thought. It means, the devotee of ahimsa has to be tolerant and suffering-being.

It is not that I am incapable of anger, for instance, but I succeed on almost all occasions to keep my feelings under control. Whatever may be the result, there is always in me conscious struggle for following the law of non-violence deliberately and ceaselessly. Such a struggle leaves one stronger for it.

The more I work at this law, the more I feel the delight in my life the delight in the scheme of the universe. It gives me a peace and a meaning of the mysteries of nature that I have no power to describe. Thus, for Gandhi, qualities of toleration and patience are the biggest qualities of a devotee of ahimsa because it will expand the heart of the devotee where the other qualities like love, compassion, fraternity will naturally flourish. Even in religious field Gandhi welcomed toleration and compassion.

I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all land to be blown about my house as freely as possible, but I refuse to be blown, of my feet by any of them. Mine is not a religion of the prison house, it has room for the least among God’s creatures, but it is proof against the insolent bride of race, religion or colour.

For Gandhi, ahimsa is the highest form of compassion and it is possible only if the seeker could remain himself humbler than the dust. The world crushes the dust under its feet, but the seeker after truth should so humble that even the dust could crush him. Thus compassion, tolerance and forgiveness are some essential qualities of the devotee of ahimsa and truth.

In Gandhian philosophy, the concepts of ahimsa and truth can be applicable not only in religious and moral fields, but also in political, economic and social fields. He defined the new concept of ahimsa not only for individual life, but also for social life. For Gandhi, “non-violence is not an individual virtue but a course of spiritual and political conduct for the individual and community.”

A devotee of ahimsa must know how to control his emotions and anger in social and individual life. It is the collective being, community or society from where we can get inspiration for ahimsa. To have a balance and comprehensive society, ahimsa is mandatory.

Thus, a non-violent society would be a society where there would not be any discrimination on the basis of class, caste, sex, colour, creed, birthplace etc. If the individualistic concept of ahimsa means compassion, love, toleration and patience, then the socialistic concept of ahimsa means absence of exploitation and discrimination based domination, i.e., presence of a free society.

To conclude, ahimsa is a means not only to gain spirituality and salvation or Moksha for an individual, but also it is an instrument to preserve a comprehensive and balanced society. Consequently, ahimsa became first and foremost principle in the Gandhian philosophy and practice. To spread and disseminate it was the ultimate aim of his life for which he struggled throughout.

Other Aspects of a New World Order :

In the previous section we have seen how truth and non-violence have been playing significant role as foundational values for a new world order. It is a unique world order in the sense that nature of politics, economics, and religion as well as the system of educations are totally different in Gandhian plan of life. The section follows shall try to present a comprehensive picture of various tenets of this new world order one-by-one.

Politics of a new world order, which is essentially based on the principle of truth and non-violence, would be influenced by morality and spirituality. Gandhi’s ultimate aim was to spiritualize the politics. Different experiences, which he got through the different experiments, revealed him that truth and non-violence are those principles which govern our life. That is way; his politics is directed by spiritual and moral laws.

For him, even politics is a kind of social or religious work. Gandhi says, “For me politics bereft of religion are absolute dirt, even to be shunned. Politics concerns nation and that which must be one of the concerns of a man who is religiously inclined, in other words, a seeker after God and truth. For me, God and Truth are convertible terms, and if anyone told me that God is a God of untruth or a God of torture, I would decline to worship him. Therefore, in politics also we have to establish the kingdom of Heaven.”

That is why, Ronald J. Terchek says that “for Gandhi political life must be an echo of public life and there cannot be any division between the two and each to be morally directed.” As religion and morality provide a kind of inspiration to individuals personal life, similarly, his public life is also influenced by religion.

For Gandhi, politics is directly related with the development of nation and, it is possible, if we use truthful and non-violent means into political sphere. Politics, which is achieved through non-violent means and which is based on the religious values and moral norms in Gandhian philosophy, is explained in this section.

Non-Violent State :

Gandhi opines:

To me political power is not an end but one of the means of enabling people to better their condition in every department of life. Political power means capacity to regulate national life through national representatives. If national life becomes so perfect as to become self-regulated, no representation is necessary. There is then a state of enlightened anarchy. In such a state everyone is his own ruler.

He rules himself in such a manner that he is never a hindrance to his neighbours. In the ideal state therefore there is no political power because there is no state. But the ideal is never realized in life. Hence, the classical statement of Thoreau that Government is best which governs the least must be accepted…

Though Gandhi’s ultimate aim was to realize Ramrajya, yet Swaraj was his second best state. Ramrajya is an end, is an ideal, Swaraj is the way, Swaraj is the means, the reality. Swaraj is also based on the principles of satya and ahimsa. For Gandhi non-violence is the means to flourish the way of democratic life in real sense of the term.

Because the aim of democracy is to provide liberty as much as possible and it can be flourished only in a proper non-violent society. Therefore, non-violence should be cherished as much as possible. By criticizing the western concept of democracy Gandhi said that either they should declare themselves as dictators or should try to evolve themselves as democrats in real sense of the term.

For western philosophy the practice of non-violence is related with an individual’s personal life. But Gandhi applied it even in public and political spheres and presented a new form of politics oriented towards a peaceful, truthful, non-violent, humanitarian society.

By police force, he meant:

The police of my conception will, however, be of a wholly different pattern from the present day force. Its rank will be composed of believers in non-violence. They will be servants, not masters, of the people. The people will instinctively render them every help, and through mutual cooperation they will easily deal with ever-decreasing disturbances. The police force will have some kind of arms, but they will be rarely used, if at all. In fact, the policeman will be reformers.

Thus, in Gandhi’s non-violent society police force will adopt evolutionary steps for the sinner, not the discriminatory measures. In fact, the policemen would be reformers. Their police work would be confided primarily to robbers and dacoits. Similarly, there will be no room for communal disturbance. In this manner, Gandhi’s state is the synonym of real democracy.

Discussing about the internal set-up of a non-violent society, Gandhi says that it will be based on the principle of decentralization. For him, centralization of power is the main cause of exploitation and violence. Therefore, power must be decentralized. Within a decentralized structure, each and every state, institution, village and individual will get an opportunity for development.

In this structure composed of innumerable villages there will be ever widening, never ascending circles. Life will not be a pyramid with the apex sustained by the bottom. But it will be an oceanic circle whose centre will be the individual always ready to perish for the circle of villages, till at last the whole becomes one life composed of individuals, never aggressive in their arrogance but ever humble, sharing the majority of the oceanic circle of which they are integral units.

Accordingly, in such a scheme of non-violent society, villages will be ready to sacrifice themselves for the development of the state and similarly states will be ready to devote themselves for the development of the villages.

In this society all the members will help each other and no one would be assumed as more dominant and powerful. The concept of equality will be prevailed there in real sense of the term. All the members of the society would be totally devoted for the egalitarian and just development of the society.

It acknowledges that in the Gandhian non-violent society, state and other institutions will be treated as servants of the people. And as much as this sense of duty will be increased, the state will be withering away because now all the members are so conscious and alert for their duties and responsibilities that any regulating authority will not be required at all. It will now be a perfect enlightened anarchy, which is the ultimate objective to be achieved.

Autonomy of Individual in Gandhian State :

In Gandhian non-violent state every individual has to play his/her role in a right manner.

By accepting the importance of an individual, Gandhi said:

If the individual ceases to count, what is a society? Individual freedom alone can make man voluntarily surrender himself completely to the service of society. If it is wrested from him he becomes an automation and the society is ruined. No society can possibly be built on a denial of individual freedom.

Gandhi used to say that an individual is the combination of negative and positive instincts. Positively, he is the combination of spirituality, morality and rationality. Negatively, he looks for many hedonistic pleasures. Individual’s life is continuously struggling within all these positive and negative instincts.

Thus, the state should try to flourish the positive instincts in individual. As much the state will be non-violent, individual will consume his/her liberty and lead a moral life. For Gandhi, non-violent state will always be against the centralization of power.

I look upon an increase in the power of the state with the greatest fear, because although while apparently doing well by minimizing exploitation, it does the greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality which lies at the root of all progress.

It shows that state represents violence in a concentrated and consolidated form. The individual has a soul, but as the state is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence. Gandhi proposes the concept of voluntary organization to be replaced by the state.

It means that”… Real Swaraj will come not by the acquisition of authority by a few but by the acquisition of capacity by all to resist authority when it is abused. In other words, Swaraj is to be obtained by educating the masses to a sense of their capacity to regulate and control authority.” Thus, in Gandhi’s non-violent state, moral individual is the ideal one.

Political Means: Satyagraha and Non-Violent Movement :

As politics and its various branches are based on the principles of truth and non-violence, similarly various institutions of politics are also influenced by these principles. Thus, an ideal state, which is non-violent, will be directed only by the ideal instrument.

And for Gandhi satyagraha is the main instrument in a non-violent ideal society. In fact, the philosophy, which works behind the action of satyagraha, is the philosophy of truth and non-violence itself. Satya is the end and ahimsa is the means. The term satyagraha stands for soul force.

According to Gandhi, “Passive resistance is a method of securing right by personal suffering; it is the reverse of resistance by arms. When I refuse to do a thing that is repugnant to my conscience, I use soul force. For instance, the government of the day has passed a law which is applicable to me. I do not like it. If by using violence I force the government to repeal the law, I am employing what may be termed body force. If I do not obey the law and accept the penalty for its breach, I use soul force. It involves sacrifice of self.”

Actually, satyagraha stands for two terms – satya and agraha. Satya means truth and agraha means insisting on something without becoming obstinate or uncompromising. When the two terms are combined, there is a beautiful duality of meaning, implying both insistences on and for truth.

A moral agent insists on truth as he sees it, but acknowledges that he might be wrong and invites his opponents to join him in a cooperative search for truth. That is why, sometimes, it is also called as sacrifice of self or active love for others.

Gandhi writes:

Passive resistance is an all sided sword, it can be used anyhow, it bless him who uses it and him against whom it is used. Without drawing a drop of blood it produces far reaching results. It never ruined and cannot be stolen. Competition between passive resistors does not exhaust. The sword of passive resistance does not require a scabbard. It is strange indeed that you should consider such a weapon to be weapon merely of the weak.

To become a passive resister is easy enough but it is also equally difficult. All satyagrahis are bound one and all to refrain at all hazard from violence, not to throw stones or in any-way whatever to injure anybody. Satyagrahi, in Gandhian formulation, would be a self-disciplined person.

Truth, non-violence, Brahmacharya, Aparigraha, Astaya, fearlessness is some guiding principles for a satyagrahi. By following all these principles in her/his individual life, an individual may become a true satyagrahi individually as well as socially. A true satyagrahi must have faith in good human nature.

A person, who himself is not free from all these whims, how he/she will handle the situations at individual or social spheres. Gandhi said after his great deal of experience that “those who want to become passive resister for the service of the country have to observe perfect chastity, adopt poverty, follow truth and cultivate fearlessness.”

He further said:

Chastity is one of the greatest disciples without which the mind cannot attain requisite firmness. A man who is unchaste loses stamina, becomes emasculated and cowardly. By following all these rules and regulations a satyagrahi can be a good and balanced person and can use all these practices in public and political affairs. Gandhi assumes that only self-disciplined, fearless and non-violent can become a true satyagrahi. And it is not difficult to be a satyagrahi because all these qualities are inherent in human nature.

As a political instrument, satyagraha can be exercised in the following ways:

Non-Violent Movement:

Gandhi believes that it is citizen only who allows the state to do exploitation. If people will not accept the bad laws, the state automatically will not be able to pass bad legislation. Accordingly, “that we should obey laws whether good or bad is a new fangled notion. There was no such thing in former days.

The people disregarded those laws they did not like and suffered the penalties for their breach. It is contrary to our manhood if we obey laws repugnant to our conscience. Such teaching is opposed to a religion and means slavery.” Law-abiding citizen means the satyagrahi citizen and a true satyagrahi will always protest against injustice and exploitation. But, the way to protest will always be unique in its terms.

Following are some non-violent programmes which Gandhi used during 1920s:

i. To resign from each and every kind of government services, honours and posts.

ii. Non-participation, directly or indirectly, in any public/government functioning.

iii. To close all the educational institutions funded by government.

iv. To protest against government laws, lawyers and conflicts rising by government and try to organized their own panchayat institutions.

v. To boycott all the foreign-based services protected by government.

vi. To popularize swadeshi and boycott of the foreign goods.

Satyagraha would be different in different context. If a satyagrahi is protesting against his opponent and he can do his work without any disturbance, then it will be called self-purification process in a very strict sense because apparently your opponent is not coming in the way.

In other aspect, satyagraha may be very radical in nature. Because here your opponent would not be able to do any work without your presence, without your help and cooperation. Hence, here lots of considerations are required before going through the path of satyagraha. If really an atmosphere becomes so stressful and unbearable then only one should adopt this type of protest for the sake of dharma, humanity and morality.

Civil Disobedience Movement:

Like non-cooperation, civil disobedience is another branch of the same tree i.e., satyagraha. According to Gandhi, it is the duty of every satyagrahi to resist and disobey all those laws, which he considers to be unjust and immoral. But he insisted that such disobedience must be civil in the sense of being polite, dutiful and non-violent.

Gandhi believes that if you are disobeying inhuman laws, there is not any harm. Actually, most people not understand the complicated machinery of the government. They do not realize that every citizen silently but nonetheless certainly sustains the government of the day in the way of which he has no knowledge.

Every citizen therefore renders himself responsible for every act of his government. And it is quite proper to support it so long as the actions of the government are bearable. But when they hurt his nation, it becomes his duty to withdraw his support.

With this conception in his mind, Gandhi insists that no government exists independently of its people. Citizens may accede to their government because they generally support it. Or, they may disagree with the state’s conduct but nevertheless acquiesce because the costs of dissent are high, because they are felicitous, or because they are preoccupied with their own individual concerns.

Whatever the reasons, Gandhi argues; government rests on their sufferance, even though the state or individuals might deny the relationship. By making power visible and by teaching people that they are the basis of power, he thinks he can domesticate it and make it accountable to clear-righted citizens.

Gandhi credits individuals with power appear in his call for the individual to stand alone, if necessary, to reclaim power. On his account, lonely assertion of power can have a powerful demonstration effect as others come to see their complicity in their own domination and understand that they can recover the power they ceded to others.

By explaining the inherent meaning of civil disobedience, Gandhi tells if there is a democratic institution, government is very much cooperative to their citizens, and citizens are ready to do work with government and if it’s different agencies are very satisfactory, then there is no need to go for civil disobedience. Because for small cause one cannot launch civil disobedience movement. It does not mean that small cause is not important. It is important and can be solved by small gathering instead of going for a movement.

Tolerance and patience are playing an important role in civil disobedience. The person who is more tolerant and more patient will prove himself as a good follower of the principle of civil disobedience. By locating ‘civil disobedience’,

If civil disobedience movement is taking a form/shape where innocent people are losing their life and if Satyagraha is realizing the fact that it is going to be uncontrollable, then it would be better to take the movement back.

In this manner, one can infer that the disobedience of law will be called disobedience only if it is non-violent in real sense of the term. The ultimate objective of civil disobedience movement, which is non-violent, is to win the opponent by facing all the kinds of inhuman atrocities.

Strikes are also taken by Gandhi as a non-violent political action. For Gandhi, “I do not deny that such strikes can serve political ends. But they do not fall within the plan of non-violent non-cooperation. It does not require much effort of the intellect to perceive that it is most dangerous thing to make political use of labour until labours understand the political conditions of the country and are prepared to work for the common good. This is hardly to be expected of them all of a sudden and until they have bettered their own conditions so as to enable them to keep body and soul together in a decent manner.

The greatest political contribution that labourer can make is to improve their own condition, to become better informed, to insist on their rights, and even to demand proper use by their employers of the manufactured goods in which they have had such an important hand. The proper evolution, therefore, would be for the labourers to raise themselves to the status of part proprietors. Strikes, therefore, for the present situation should only take place for the direct betterment of labourers’ lot, and when they have acquired the spirit of patriotism, for the regulation of prices of the manufactured goods.

The basic conditions of a successful strike are as follows:

i. The cause of the strike must be just.

ii. There should be practical unanimity among the strikers.

iii. There should be no violence used against non-strikers.

iv. Strikes should be able to maintain themselves during the strike period without falling back upon union funds and such therefore occupy themselves in some useful and productive temporary occupation.

v. A strike is no remedy when there is enough other labour to replace strikers. In that case, in the event of unjust treatment or inadequate wages or the like, resignation is the remedy.

vi. Successful strikes have taken place even when the above conditions have not been fulfilled, but that merely proves that the employers were weak and had a guilty conscience.

Thus, it is clear that there should be no strike which is not justifiable on merits. No unjust strike should succeed. All public sympathy must be withheld from such strikes. The public have no means of judging the merits of a strike, unless they are backed by impartial persons enjoying public confidence. Interested men cannot judge the merit of their own case. Hence, there must be an arbitrator accepted by the parties or a judicial adjudication.

Fasting is a potent weapon for the satyagrahi. Like another means of non-violent resolution, fasting is also an instrument of self-purification and that of your opponent. It cannot be taken by everyone. According to Gandhi, “Mere physical capacity to take it is no qualification for it … it should never be mechanical effort or a mere imitation. It must come from the depth of one’s soul. It is, therefore, rare.”

A Satyagrahi should fast only as a last resort when all other avenues of redress have failed. There is no room for imitation in fasts. He, who has no inner strength, should not dream of it, and never with attachment to success … Ridiculous fasts spread like plague and are harmful.” For Gandhi, “there can be no room for selfishness, anger, lack of faith, or impatience in a pure fast…. Infinite patience, firm resolve, single mindedness of purpose, perfect clam and no anger must of necessity be there.

But since it is impossible for a person to develop these entire qualities all at once, no one who has not devoted himself to following the laws of ahimsa should undertake a Satyagrahi fast. It shows how Gandhi has made fast as a public/political instrument, which was earlier treated only as an individual effort. Public fasting increases the confidence of la5iTnen and also alert them for previous mistakes. It is the strongest instrument to change the heart of your opponent.

Hizrat is another very significant instrument of non-violent movement. Hizrat means to leave your place by your own consent or to leave the place of exploitation to protest against exploitation. For Gandhi, Hizrat is an important instrument in the hands of satyagrahi. To preserve their self-respect and self-esteem, the exploited people are bound to leave the place. To leave the place where imperialist or dominating rule is prevailing. Satyagrahi has to face all these physical, emotional and mental sufferings alone. Others will not be invited.

Thus, Gandhi tried his best to present new tools to protest. Actually, he intended to attach ‘Neeti’ with ‘Rajya’. His concept of politics revolved around the concept of morality or humanity. Politics is an instrument in one’s hand to establish a new world order which would be more humane and conducive.

Economics :

What Gandhi means by real progress is not merely material progress but integral human progress where moral progress is of high priority. He suspects that material advancement has a strong tendency to lead moral decay.

For Gandhi, “I must confess that I do not draw a sharp or any distinction between economics and ethics-economics that hurt the well-being of an individual or a nation are immoral and, therefore, sinful. Thus, the economics that permit one country to prey upon another are immoral. It is sinful to buy and use articles made by sweated labour.”

Accordingly, true economics never militates against the highest ethical standard, just as all true ethics to be worth its name must at the same time be also good economics. An economics that inculcates Mammon worship, and enables the strong to amass wealth at the expense of the weak, is a false and dismal science. It spells death. True economics, on the other hand, stands for social justice; it promotes the good of all equally including the weakest, and is indispensable for decent life.

Gandhi said that the economic constitution of India and for the matter of that of the world should be such that no one under it should suffer from want of food and clothing. In other words, everybody should be able to get sufficient work to enable him to make the two ends meet. And this ideal can be universally utilized only if the means of production of the elementary necessities of life remain in the control of the masses. These should be freely available to all as God’s air and water are or ought to be; they should not be made a vehicle for the exploitation of others.

Their monopolization by any country, nation or group of persons would be unjust. The neglect of this simple principle is the cause of the destitution that we witness today not only in this land but in other parts of the world too. Actually, Gandhi wants to propound such an economic order where each and everyone will be treated equally. Quarrel between capital and labour will be stopped for ever.

“I want to bring about an equalization of status. The working classes have all these centuries been isolated and relegated to a lower status. They have been shoodras, and the word has been interpreted to mean an inferior status. I want to allow no differentiation between the son of a weaver, of an agriculturalist and of a school- master.

For Gandhi, economic equality is the master to non-violent independence. Working for economic equality means abolishing the eternal conflict between capital and labour. It means the levelling down of the few rich in whose hands is concentrated the bulk of the nation’s wealth on the one hand, and a levelling up of the semi-starved naked millions, on the other.

A non-violent system of government is clearly an impossibility so long as the wider gulf between the rich and the hungry millions persists. The contrast between the palaces of New Delhi and the miserable hovels of the poor, labouring class cannot last one day in a free India in which the poor will enjoy the same power as the richest in the land.

But one may put this question: how to propound an economic order on the basis of equality? According to Gandhi, the first step in this direction would be the principle of controlling self or in other words the principle of trusteeship.

A violent and bloody revolution is a certainty one day unless there is a voluntary abdication of riches and the power which riches give and sharing them for the common good. I adhere to my doctrine of trusteeship in spite of the ridicule that has been poured upon it. It is true that it is difficult to reach. So is non-violence difficult to attain. But we made up our mind in 1920 to negotiate that steep ascent.

According to the doctrine of trusteeship, one may not possess a rupee more than their neighbours. How is this to be brought about? Non-violently? Or should the wealthy be dispossessed of their possessions? To do this, we would naturally have to resort to violence. This violent action cannot benefit society.

Society will be the person, for it will lose the gifts of a man who knows how to accumulate wealth. Therefore, the non-violent way is eventually superior. The rich man will be left in possession of his wealth, of which he will use what he reasonably requires for his personal needs and will act as a trustee for the remainder to be used for society. In this argument honesty on the part of the trustee is assumed.

As soon as a man looks upon himself as a servant of society, earns for its sake, spends for its benefit, then purity enters into earrings and there is Ahimsa in his venture. Moreover, if man’s mind turn towards this way of life, there will come about a peaceful revolution in society, and that without any bitterness.

Further, Gandhi’s concept of economics is centered not only up to individual. Explaining his concept of economics at societal level, Gandhi criticized the western notion of economics where matter is at the centre. Contrary to this, in Gandhian philosophy, an individual is a supreme consideration.

For Gandhi, man himself is a big asset. That is why Gandhi used to say; whatever we are doing our supreme consideration must be for human cause. But, in modern economic set-up, we have ignored all the moral and human aspects of the society. Gandhi has criticized all the symbols of modern economy one by one. At the first step he has condemned machines.

In Hind Swaraj, He writes:

Today machinery merely helps a few to ride on the backs of millions. The impetus behind it all is not the philanthropy to save labour, but greed. It is against this constitution of things that I am fighting with all my might…. The supreme consideration is man. The machine should not tend to atrophy the limbs of man. The machinery which is developing today is becoming the means of exploitation and further domination by rich countries and rich people. Today’s machine-based industrialization of economy is centered on profit-making tendency.

Gandhi criticizes the machine being responsible for creating the panic situation of unemployment. Imagine a nation working only five hours per day on an average, and this not by choice but by force of circumstances, and you have a realistic picture of India. He also explains the reason why our average life rate is deplorably low, and why we are getting more and more impoverishment is that we have neglected our 7, 00,000 villages. We have indeed thought of them, but only to the extent of exploiting them.

We read thrilling accounts of the “glory that was India and of the land that was flowing with milk and honey; but today it is a land of starving millions. We are sitting in this time pandal under a blaze of electronic lights, but we do not know that we are burning these lights at the expense of the poor. We have no right to use these lights if we forget that we owe these to them.”

Gandhi was not against machines. He himself said, “How can I be when I know that even this body is a most delicate piece of machinery? The spinning wheel is a machine; a little toothpick is a machine. What I object to is the craze for machinery, not machinery as such. The craze is for what they call labour-saving machinery.

Men go on ‘saving labour’ till thousands are without work and thrown on the open streets to die of starvation. I want to save time and labour not for a fraction of mankind but for all. I want the concentration of wealth, not in the hands of a few, but in the hands of all.” He looks for localized production as it is required there in the society.

When production and consumption both become localized, the temptation to speed up production, indefinitely and at price, disappears. All the endless difficulties and problems that our present day economic system presents, too, would then come to an end.

Gandhi believed that industrialization on a mass scale will necessarily lead to passive or active exploitation of the villages as the problems of competition and marketing come in. Therefore, we have to concentrate on the village being self-contained, manufacturing mainly for use.

Provided this character of the industry is maintained, there would be no objection to villages using even the modem machines and tools that they can make afford to use. Only they should not be used as a means of exploitation of others.

Gandhi’s industrialization will be established by industrious people. His industrialization will be non-violent in nature. As the non-violent nation will be self-dependent. And, our self-dependency will definitely reduce our dependence on machines. Gandhi propounds the philosophy of Village republic’. He was very much confident about the fact that Swaraj will be established by village industry (then only economic will be inspired by morality).

My idea of village Swaraj is that it is a complete republic, independent of its neighbours for its own vital wants and yet independent for many others in which dependence is necessary. Thus, every village’s first concern will be to grow its own food crops, and cotton for its cloth.

It should have a reserve for its cattle, recreation and playground for adults and children-. Then if there is more land available, it will grow useful money crops, thus excluding ganja, tobacco, opium and the like.

Thus, the economic world order based on truth and non-violence will totally be ethical in nature. It is possible only if each and every unit of the society will be self-sufficient and self-dependent. Therefore, in Gandhian philosophy, each and every aspects of life would be ethical and moral principles. In Gandhian philosophy economics is a part of moral life as its ultimate aim is to propound an ideal and moral world order.

In the new world order religion will play an important and vibrant role. In fact, God has always been the centre of Gandhian thought. In his philosophy the meaning of religion has its unique understanding.

Let me explain what I mean by religion. It is not the Hindu religion, which I certainly prize above all religion, but the religion which transcends Hinduism, which changes one’s very nature, which binds one indissolubly to the truth within and which-ever purifies. It is a permanent element in human nature which … leaves the soul restless until it has found itself.

Religion does not mean any particular religion or community. Religion is one which can flourish an individual’s moral and ethical nature. According to Gandhi, the essence of religion lies in morality and humanity. For a true morality religion plays a similar role as water plays for seed within clay. For Gandhi, religion is not only limited up to the concept and essence of God but it is a day-to-day practice. Our entire daily works, whether it is economics, politics, religion or all our deeds, are supposed to achieve the same distinctions.

They are intermingled. They are interlinked or interdepended. Separately, they do not have any importance and relevance. Ultimately, we want to know our own nature with different experiences gained in life as self-realization is the absolute end.

Actually, gandhian philosophy of religion propounds the concept of fraternity and brotherhood via different religions. Even then he finds the idea of religious convention profoundly irreligious and offensive. For Gandhi, every man is born into a particular religion.

Since no religion is wholly false, he should be able to work out his destiny in and through it. And if he feels attracted to some aspects of another religion, he should be at liberty to borrow them. Gandhi cannot see why a man should even need to give up his religion.

Gandhi acknowledges that men might find sufficient similarities between their conceptions of God to induce them to belong to a common religion. However, since men are naturally different, their conception and way of relating to God can never be completely identical. Every organized religion must therefore remain a loose fellowship of believers, and accommodate, even encourage, individual diversity. Insistence on total creedal conformity derives their individuality, violates their spiritual integrity and leads to untruth.

In fact, every major religion articulates a unique vision of God and emphasizes different features of the human condition. The idea of God as a loving father is most fully developed in Christianity, and the emphasis on love and suffering is also unique to it. I cannot say that it is singular, or that it is not to be found in other religions. But the presentation is unique. Rigorous monotheism and the spirit of equality are most beautifully articulated in and particular to Islam.

The distinction between the impersonal and personal conceptions of God, the principle of the unity of all life and the doctrine of ahimsa are distinctive to Hinduism. Every religion has a distinct moral and spiritual ethos and represents a wonderful and irreplaceable ‘spiritual composition’. To a truly religious man all religions should be equally dear.

Gandhi argues that since the cosmic power is infinite and the limited human mind can grasp only a ‘fragment’ of it, and that too inadequately, every religion is necessarily limited and partial. Even then we cannot say them as untruth. But again they won’t be called as perfect or absolute one. Those claiming to be directly revealed by God are revealed to men with their fair share of inescapable human limitations and communicated to others in necessarily inadequate human languages.

To claim that a particular religion offers an exhaustive or even definitive account of the nature of the cosmic spirit is to imply both that some men are free from inescapable human limitations and that God is partial and thus to be guilty of both spiritual arrogance and blasphemy. Since no religion is final and perfect, each can greatly benefit from a dialogue with other religion.

In fact, for Gandhi, every human being has a unique psychological and spiritual constitution. He cannot leap out of it anymore than he can jump out of his body. Every God is therefore someone’s God, that is, his or her way of understanding the cosmic spirit.

No individual can avoid looking at the cosmic power through his own eyes and conceptualizing it in terms of his uniquely personal dispositions, tendencies and needs. Since the very idea of a personal God has its origin to man’s moral and emotional needs, and the latter vary from individual to individual, Gandhi insists that one cannot consistently accept the legitimacy of a personal God and deny each individual’s right to form his own distinctive conception of Him.

According to him, “Religion represents the way man conceives and relates himself to God”. At another place, he writes, “The formal, customary, organized or historical religions center on the personal, and the pure or eternal religion around the impersonal God. For Gandhi Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam and the other religion all based on specific conceptions of a personal God. They involve distinct forms of prayer, worship, rituals and beliefs about His nature and relation to the world, and are sectarian.”

The true or pure religion lies beyond them, and has nothing more and nothing less than recognizing that the universe is pervaded and governed by a cosmic and organizing one’s entire life accordingly. It is basically living in the contrast, intimate and unmediated presence of the cosmic spirit, and represents the purest form of spirituality. Thus, the true religion ‘transcends [but] does not supersede’ organized religions and constitutes their common ‘basis’ and connecting ‘link’.

Education :

In the new world order, which will be based on the foundations of truth and non-violence, education will also play a very healthy and positive role. For Gandhi, to establish a new society, a new approach to education will be required. That is why; he did a very serious and continuous effort with his fellow-beings.

For Gandhi, the ultimate aim of each and every type of education is to flourish inherent qualities of an individual. An education system, where an individual’s intellectual, spiritual and physical aspects are adhered, will be called as true education.

It can be assumed that an individual’s personality has three aspects, viz., intelligence, emotion and appetite. Theoretically, these may be termed by different terminologies but in actual practice they are not different from each other.

In psychology, these is called as intelligence, emotions and appetite, whereas in daily life as wisdom (Gyan), devotion (Bhakti) and service (Karma). All these three elements are there within an individual’s inherent personality. Now how to make a comprehensive, consistent and balanced development of these aspects of human personality would be the ultimate aim of education in Gandhian philosophy.

Through the proper constructive programme, Gandhi outlined the system of education in his own and unique way, in the following manner:

Basic Education :

The objective of the basic education is that of intellectual, physical and moral development of the children through the medium of a handicraft. But I hold that any scheme, which is sound from the educative point of view and effectively managed, is bound to be sound economically.

Basic education links the children, whether of the cities or the villages, to all that is best and lasting in India. It develops both the body and mind, and keeps the child rooted to the soil with a glorious vision of the future in the realization of which he or she begins to take his or her share from the very commencement of him or her career in school.

Let us now have a cursory glance at the fundamentals of basic education:

i. All education to be true must be self-supporting, that is to say, in the end it will pay its expenses excepting the capital which will remain intact.

ii. In it the cunning of the hand will be utilized even up to the final stage, that is to say, hands of the pupils will be skillfully working at some industry for some period during the day. All education must be imparted through the medium of the provincial language.

iii. In this scheme of education there is no room for giving sectional religious training. Fundamental universal ethics will have full scope.

iv. This education, whether it is confined to children or adults, male or female, will find its way to the home of the pupils.

v. Since millions of students receiving this education will consider themselves as of the whole of India, they must learn an inter-provincial language. This common inter-provincial speech can only be Hindustani written in Nagari or Urdu scripts. Therefore, pupils have to master both the scripts.

The introduction of manual training, as an important part of basic education, will serve a double purpose in a poor country like ours. It will pay for the education of our children and teach them an occupation on which they can fall back in after-life, if they choose, for earning a living. Such a system must make our children self-reliant. Nothing will demoralize the nation so much as that we should learn to despise labour.

Higher Education:

While discussing about higher education Gandhi said, “I would revolutionize college education and relate it to national necessities. There would be degrees for mechanical and other engineers. They would be attached to the different industries which should pay for the training of the graduates they need. Thus, the Tatas would be expected to run a college for training engineers under the supervision of the state, the mill associations would run among them a college for training graduates whom they need.”

Similarly, Gandhi said, for the other industries that may be named. Commerce will have its college. There remain arts, medicine and agriculture. Several private arts colleges are today self-supporting. The state would, therefore, cease to run its own. Medical colleges would be attached to certified hospitals.

As they are popular among moneyed men, they may be expected by voluntary contributions to support medical colleges. And agricultural colleges to be worthy of the name must be self-supporting. Gandhi said that he had a painful experience of some agricultural graduates. Their knowledge is superficial.

They lack practical experience. But if they had their apprenticeship on farms, which are self-restrained and answer the requirements of the country, they would not have to gain experience after getting their degrees and at the expense of their employers.

The suggestion has often being made that in order to make education compulsory, or even available to every boy and girl wishing to receive education, our schools and colleges should become almost, if not wholly, self-supporting not through donation or state aid or fees extracted from students, but through remuneration work done by the students themselves. This can only be done by making industrial training compulsory. And it is possible only when our students begin to recognize the dignity of labour. Gandhi was totally against the concept of scholarship.

Is it not far better that we find work for poor students than that we pauperize them by providing free studentship? It is impossible to exaggerate the harm we do to Indian youth by filling their minds with the false notion that it is ungentlemanly to labour with one’s hands and feet for one’s livelihood or schooling.

The harm done is moral and material, indeed much more moral than material. A free ship lies and should lie like a load upon a conscientious lad’s mind throughout his whole life. No one likes to be reminded in after life that he had to depend upon charity for his education.

Contrarily where is the person who will not recall with pride those days if he had the good fortune to have had them when he worked in a carpentry shop or the like for the sake of education himself – mind, body, and soul? Further, Gandhi presents a very unique concept of university education.

Universities will look after the whole of the field of education and will prepare and approve courses of studies in the various departments of education. No private school should be run without the previous sanction of the respective Universities.

University charters should be given liberally to any body of persons of proved worth and integrity, it being always understood that the Universities will not cost the state anything except that it will bear the cost of running a Central Education Department.

About adult education, Gandhi said that if I had charge of adult education, I should begin with opening the minds of the adult pupils to the greatness and vastness of their country. The villager’s India is contained in his village. If he goes to another village, he talks of his own village as his home. Hindustan is for him a geographical term.

We have no notion of the ignorance prevailing in the villages. The villages know nothing of foreign rule and its evils … they do not know that the foreigner’s presence is due to their own weakness and their ignorance of the power they possess to rid themselves of the foreign rule.

Gandhi continues “My adult education means, therefore, first, true political education of the adult by word of mouth … side by side with the education by mouth will be the literary education. This is itself a specially. Many methods are tried in order to shorten the period of education.”

Gandhi believes that mass illiteracy is India’s sin and shame and must be liquidated…. Of course, the literacy campaign must not begin and end with knowledge of the spread of useful knowledge. The dry knowledge of the three R’s is not even now, it can never be, a permanent part of the village’s life.

They must have knowledge given to them which they must use daily. It must not be thrust upon them. They should have the appetite for it. What they today is something they neither want nor appreciate.

Give the villagers village arithmetic, village geography, village history and the literary knowledge that they must use daily, i.e., reading and writing letters, etc. They will treasure such knowledge and pass on to the other stages. They have no use for books which give them nothing of daily use.

About religious education, Gandhian philosophy is very much clear. Gandhi does not believe that state can concern itself or cope with religious education. He believes that religious education must be the sole concern of religious associations. He is against the mixing up of religion and ethics.

I believe that fundamental ethics is common to all religions. Teaching of fundamental ethics is undoubtedly a function of the state. By religion I have not in mind fundamental ethics but what goes by the name of denominationalism.

We have suffered enough from State-aided religion and a State Church. A society or a group, which depends partly or wholly on State aid for the existence of its religion, does not deserve, or, better still, does not have any religion worth the name.

By explaining the curriculum of religious education, Gandhi said that it should include a study of the tenets of faith other than one’s. For this purpose the students should be trained to cultivate the habit of understanding and appreciating the doctrines of various great religions of the world in a spirit of reverence and broad-minded tolerance.

This, if properly done, would help to give them a spiritual assurance and a better appreciation of their own religion … there is one rule, however, which should always be kept in mind while studying all great religion and, that is, that one should study them only through the writings of known votaries of the respective religions.

As for women’s education, Gandhi was not very much sure whether it should be different from men’s and when it should begin. But he was a firm supporter that women should have the same facilities as men and even special facilities where necessary.

The most important aspect of the Gandhian philosophy of education is the role played by teachers. For Gandhi, all teachers should essentially be men of character. Even if teacher is not an expert in his subject, he must be a man of character.

The teacher who is concerned only with syllabus to be taught, not with the character of his student, he would not be called as true teacher at all. Thus, education of character is much more important than the literary education. Apart from a man of character, a teacher must also be very much aware about the new development in his field. A teacher should always be ready for new initiative.

… Every teacher, if he is to do full justice to his pupils, will have to prepare the daily lesson from the material available to him. This, too he will have to suit to the special requirements of his class. Real education has to draw out the best from the boys and girls to be educated. This can never be done by packing ill-assorted and unwarranted information into the heads of the pupils.

It means, a teacher should lead a more scholastic life than a student. A good teacher should always try to evolve new and more better ways of teaching so that the students can raise questions and the teacher should try to solve them in a more gentle and intelligent way.

Like teacher’s responsibility, Gandhi also stresses on student’s sense of duty. He tells that students should keep their faith in their teachers. A good and healthy teacher-student relationship would be there in Gandhian scheme of education.

The above scheme of education in Gandhian thought shows that education system, which is very much unique here, will play vibrant role for societal reconstruction. As Gandhi said that the aim of education should be to reconstruct the whole society and not only a student. New society will be created by a new education system.

This system will definitely be not partial or individual in nature but it would be totally comprehensive and balanced one. It will produce such a kind of curious students who are really devoted for the development of their society.

Position of Women :

In the plan of life based on non-violence, women have as much right to shape their own destiny as men. But as every right in a non-violent society proceeds from the previous performance of a duty, it follows that rules of social conduct must be framed by mutual cooperation and constitution.

The non-violent society would be based on the following principle:

Woman is the companion of man gifted with equal mental capacities, she has the right to participate in every minute detail in the activities of man and she has an equal right of freedom and liberty with him. She is entitled to a supreme place in her own sphere of activity as man is in his.

This ought to be the natural condition of things and not as a result only of learning to read and write. By sheer force of a vicious custom, even the most ignorant and worthless men have been enjoying a superiority over women which they do not deserve and ought not to have.

Many of our movements stop half way because of the conditions of our women. Much of our work alone does not yield appropriate results; our lot is like that of the penny-wise and pound foolish trader who does not employ enough capital in his business. Gandhi tried to see the difference between the sexes in wider perspective and kept his faith in fundamental unity. He was of the opinion that both of them are the creation of God.

My own opinion is that, just as fundamentally man and woman are one; their problem must be one in essence. The two live the same lives have the same feelings. Each is a complement of the other. The one cannot live without the other’s active help. Nevertheless there is no doubt that at some point there is bifurcation.

Whilst both are fundamentally one, it is also equally true that in the form there is a vital difference between the two. Hence, the vocation of the two also must be different. The duty of motherhood, which the vast majority of women will always undertake, requires qualities which man need not possess.

She is passive, he is active. She is essentially mistress of the house. He is the breadwinner; she is the keeper and distributor of the bread. She is the caretaker in every sense of the term. The art of bringing up the infants of the race is her special and sole prerogative. Without her care the race would become extinct.

For Gandhi, equality of sexes does not mean equality of occupations. Nature has created sexes as complements of each other. Their functions are defined as their forms. Gandhi was never in favour of the modern conception of equality of occupations. There may be no legal bar against a woman hunting or wielding a lance. But she instinctively recoils from a function that belongs to man.

It shows that in Gandhian philosophy man and woman are of equal rank but they are not identical. They are a peerless pair being supplementary to one another. Each helps the other, so that without the one the existence of the other cannot be expected, and therefore it follows as a necessary corollary from these facts that anything that impairs the status of either will involve the equal ruination of both.

Actually, Gandhi was of the view that man and woman are different in their physical construction, thus their nature and qualities are different. That is why, their education and workplace will automatically be different from each other.

In framing any scheme of women’s education this cordial truth must be constantly kept in mind. Man is supreme in the outward activities of a married pair and, therefore, it is the fitness of things that he should have a greater knowledge thereof. For Gandhi, home life is entirely the sphere of women and, therefore, in domestic affairs, in the upbringing and education of children, women ought to have more knowledge. Not that knowledge should be divided into watertight compartments, or that some branches of knowledge should be closed to any-one, but unless courses of instruction are based on a discriminating appreciation of these basic principles, the fullest life of man and woman cannot be developed.

Gandhi thought that it was the irrational social norms and practices which have degraded women’s position in the society. Accordingly, the legal and customary status of women is bad enough throughout and demands radical alteration.

Legislation has been mostly the handiwork of man; and man has not always been fair and discriminating in performing that self-appointed task. The largest part of our effort, in promoting the regeneration of women, should be directed towards remaining those blemishes which are represented in our Shastras as the necessary and ingrained characteristics of women. Who will attempt this and how?

Gandhi further added,

In my humble opinion, in order to make the attempt we will have to produce women, pure, firm and self-controlled as Sita, Damayanti and Draupadi. If we do produce them, such modem sisters will have the same authority as the Shastras. We will feel ashamed of the stray reflections on them in our Smritis, and will soon forget them.

Such revolutions have occurred in Hinduism in the past, and will still take place in future, leading to the stability of our faith,

In this way, in a unique non-violent and truthful world order, women will play a important role. By flourishing their feminine qualities women will contribute their essential role in the development of the society. Gandhi said that when a woman whom we all call abala becomes sabala, all those who are helpless will become powerful. Thus, women are more responsible for the societal development.

Hence, Gandhi presented a very comprehensive and balanced model of a new world order, which is morally oriented and spiritually directed. All the aspects of this society, whether it is politics, economics, education, religion etc., are aimed at flourishing human values.

For Gandhi all our social behaviour is oriented towards the implementation of truthful and non-violent society. Thus, politics, economics, education etc. will be assumed as instruments to achieve this aim. Therefore, all these different aspects of society are interlinked.

There is fundamental unity among these institutions and all of them are looking towards the development of truthful and non-violent society. Only a comprehensive physical, moral and spiritual enhancement of society will make it a just and all-encompassing society.

The above analytical discussion reveals that truth and non-violence, which may seem meta-narratives in its nature, are the basis of Gandhian philosophy. Gandhi believes that only truth and non-violence are the ultimate reality and therefore the last objective of life to be achieved. But, postmodernist thinkers are contrary to any conception of meta-narratives whether it is truth, culture or discourse on identity.

Mahatma Gandhi’s Views on Truth!
Essay on Religion: Religion According to Gandhi

Non-Violence

No comments yet.

Leave a reply click here to cancel reply..

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Turmoil at NPR after editor rips network for political bias

The public radio network is being targeted by conservative activists over the editor’s essay, which many staffers say is misleading and inaccurate.

Uri Berliner had worked at NPR for a quarter-century when he wrote the essay that would abruptly end his tenure. On April 9, the Free Press published 3,500 words from Berliner, a senior business editor, about how the public radio network is guilty of journalistic malpractice — for conforming to a politically liberal worldview at the expense of fairness and accuracy.

“It’s true NPR has always had a liberal bent, but during most of my tenure here, an open-minded, curious culture prevailed,” Berliner wrote. “We were nerdy, but not knee-jerk, activist, or scolding. In recent years, however, that has changed.”

The essay, whose arguments were disputed by NPR management and many staffers, plunged the network into a week-long public controversy.

Last week NPR’s new CEO, Katherine Maher, indirectly referenced Berliner’s essay in a note to staff that NPR also published online. “Asking a question about whether we’re living up to our mission should always be fair game: after all, journalism is nothing if not hard questions,” she wrote. “Questioning whether our people are serving our mission with integrity, based on little more than the recognition of their identity, is profoundly disrespectful, hurtful, and demeaning.”

The drama reached a pinnacle Wednesday, when Berliner resigned while taking a shot at Maher.

In his resignation letter, Berliner called NPR “a great American institution” that should not be defunded. “I respect the integrity of my colleagues and wish for NPR to thrive and do important journalism,” he wrote in the letter, posted on his X account. “But I cannot work in a newsroom where I am disparaged by a new CEO whose divisive views confirm the very problems I cite in my Free Press essay.”

Berliner’s comments have angered many of his now-former colleagues, who dismissed as inaccurate his depiction of their workplace and who say his faulty criticisms have been weaponized against them.

Berliner’s essay is titled “ I’ve Been at NPR for 25 Years. Here’s How We Lost America’s Trust .” On its face, it seemed to confirm the worst suspicions held by NPR’s critics on the right: that the legendary media organization had an ideological, progressive agenda that dictates its journalism. The Free Press is an online publication started by journalist Bari Weiss, whose own resignation from the New York Times in 2020 was used by conservative politicians as evidence that the Times stifled certain ideas and ideologies; Weiss accused the Times of catering to a rigid, politically left-leaning worldview and of refusing to defend her against online “bullies” when she expressed views to the contrary. Berliner’s essay was accompanied by several glossy portraits and a nearly hour-long podcast interview with Weiss. He also went on NewsNation, where the host Chris Cuomo — who had been cast out from CNN for crossing ethical lines to help his governor-brother — called Berliner a “whistleblower.”

Initially, Berliner was suspended for not getting approval for doing work for another publication. NPR policy requires receiving written permission from supervisors “for all outside freelance and journalistic work,” according to the employee handbook.

An NPR spokeswoman said Wednesday that the network does not comment on personnel matters. Berliner declined The Washington Post’s request for further comment.

In an interview Tuesday with NPR’s David Folkenflik — whose work is also criticized in the Free Press essay — Berliner said “we have great journalists here. If they shed their opinions and did the great journalism they’re capable of, this would be a much more interesting and fulfilling organization for our listeners.”

Berliner’s future at NPR became an open question. NPR leaders were pressed by staff in meetings this week as to why he was still employed there. And some reporters made clear they didn’t want to be edited by Berliner anymore because they now questioned his journalistic judgment, said one prominent NPR journalist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to preserve relationships. “How are you supposed to have honest debates about coverage if you think it’s going to be fodder for the point he’s trying to make?” the staffer said.

Berliner had written that “there’s an unspoken consensus” about stories to pursue at NPR — “of supposed racism, transphobia, signs of the climate apocalypse, Israel doing something bad, and the dire threat of Republican policies” — and that the network operated without friction, “almost like an assembly line.”

Several prominent NPR journalists countered that impression. “We have strong, heated editorial debates every day to try and get the most appropriate language and nuanced reporting in a landscape that is divisive and difficult to work in as a journalist,” Leila Fadel, host of “Morning Edition,” told The Post. “Media and free independent press are often under attack for the fact-based reporting that we do.” She called Berliner’s essay “a bad-faith effort” and a “factually inaccurate take on our work that was filled with omissions to back his arguments.”

Other staffers noted that Berliner did not seek comment from NPR for his piece. No news organization is above reproach, “Weekend Edition” host Ayesha Rascoe told The Post, but someone should not “be able to tear down an entire organization’s work without any sort of response or context provided, or pushback.” There are many legitimate critiques to make of NPR’s coverage, she added, “but the way this has been done — it’s to invalidate all the work NPR does.”

NPR is known to have a very collegial culture, and the manner in which Berliner aired his criticism — perhaps even more than the substance of it — is what upset so many of his co-workers, according to one staffer.

“Morning Edition” host Steve Inskeep, writing on his Substack on Tuesday , fact-checked or contextualized several of the arguments Berliner made. For instance: Berliner wrote that he once asked “why we keep using that word that many Hispanics hate — Latinx.” Inskeep said he searched 90 days of NPR’s content and found “Latinx” was used nine times — “usually by a guest” — compared to the nearly 400 times “Latina” and “Latino” were used.

“This article needed a better editor,” Inskeep wrote. “I don’t know who, if anyone, edited Uri’s story, but they let him publish an article that discredited itself. … A careful read of the article shows many sweeping statements for which the writer is unable to offer evidence.”

This week conservative activist Christopher Rufo — who rose to fame for targeting “critical race theory,” and whose scrutiny of Harvard President Claudine Gay preceded her resignation — set his sights on Maher, surfacing old social media posts she wrote before she joined the news organization. In one 2020 tweet, she referred to Trump as a “deranged racist.” Others posts show her wearing a Biden hat, or wistfully daydreaming about hanging out with Kamala D. Harris. Rufo has called for Maher’s resignation.

“In America everyone is entitled to free speech as a private citizen,” Maher wrote in a statement to The Post, when asked about the social media posts. “What matters is NPR’s work and my commitment as its CEO: public service, editorial independence, and the mission to serve all of the American public.”

Maher, who started her job as NPR CEO last month, previously was the head of the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit that operates the online encyclopedia Wikipedia. An NPR spokesperson said in a statement Tuesday that Maher “was not working in journalism at the time” of the social media posts; she was “exercising her first amendment right to express herself like any other American citizen,” and “the CEO is not involved in editorial decisions.”

In a statement, an NPR spokesperson described the outcry over Maher’s old posts as “a bad faith attack that follows an established playbook, as online actors with explicit agendas work to discredit independent news organizations.”

Meanwhile, some NPR staffers want a more forceful defense of NPR journalism by management. An internal letter — signed by about 50 NPR staffers as of Wednesday afternoon — called on Maher and NPR editor in chief Edith Chapin to “publicly and directly” call out Berliner’s “factual inaccuracies and elisions.”

In the essay, Berliner accuses NPR of mishandling three major stories: the allegations of the 2016 Trump campaign’s collusion with Russia, the origins of the coronavirus , and the authenticity and relevance of Hunter Biden’s laptop. Berliner’s critics note that he didn’t oversee coverage of these stories. They also say that his essay indirectly maligns employee affinity groups — he name-checks groups for Muslim, Jewish, queer and Black employees, which he wrote “reflect broader movement in the culture of people clustering together based on ideology or a characteristic at birth.” (Berliner belonged to the group for Jewish employees, according to an NPR staffer with knowledge of membership.) He also writes that he found NPR’s D.C. newsroom employed 87 registered Democrats and zero Republicans in editorial positions in 2021. His critics say this figure lacks proper context.

Tony Cavin, NPR’s managing editor of standards and practices, told The Post that “I have no idea where he got that number,” that NPR’s newsroom has 660 employees, and that “I know a number of our hosts and staff are registered as independents.” That includes Inskeep, who, on his Substack, backed up Cavin’s assessment.

Berliner also wrote that, during the administration of Donald Trump , NPR “hitched our wagon” to top Trump antagonist Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) by interviewing him 25 times about Trump and Russia. Cavin told The Post NPR aired 900 interviews with lawmakers during the same period of time, “so that’s 3 percent. He’s a business reporter, he knows about statistics and it seems he’s selectively using statistics.”

Cavin said some inside the organization agree with points Berliner made, even if they “don’t like the way he went about it. The irony of this is it tells you how diverse as an organization we are, in ideological terms.”

“There are a few bits of truth in this,” NPR international correspondent Eyder Peralta wrote on Facebook. But he said the essay “uses a selecting reading to serve the author’s own world views” and paints with “too broad a brush.”

“I have covered wars, I have been thrown in jail for my work,” Peralta told The Post, “and for him to question part of what is in our nature, which is intellectual curiosity and that we follow our noses where they lead us, that hurts. And I think that damages NPR.”

Some staffers have also been attacked online since the essay’s publication. Rascoe, who, as a Black woman host for NPR, says she’s no stranger to online vitriol, but one message after Berliner’s essay labeled her as a “DEI hire” who has “never read a book in her life.”

“What stung about this one was it came on the basis of a supposed colleague’s op-ed,” whose words were “being used as fodder to attack me,” Rascoe said. “And my concern is not about me, but all the younger journalists who don’t have the platform I have and who will be attacked and their integrity questioned simply on the basis of who they are.”

NPR, like much of the media industry, has struggled in recent years with a declining audience and a tough ad market. NPR laid off 100 workers in 2023, one of its largest layoffs ever , citing fewer sponsorships and a projected $30 million decline in revenue.

Going forward, some staffers worry about the ramifications of Berliner’s essay and the reactions to it. The open letter to Maher and Chapin said that “sending the message that a public essay is the easiest way to make change is setting a bad precedent, regardless of the ideologies being expressed.”

An earlier version of this article included a reference to Uri Berliner's Free Press essay in which Berliner cited voter registration data for editorial employees of NPR's D.C. newsroom. The article has been updated to clarify that this data was from 2021, not the present day.

A history of CNN’s Laura Coates, who calmly narrated a self-immolation April 20, 2024 A history of CNN’s Laura Coates, who calmly narrated a self-immolation April 20, 2024
Are some reporters putting Trump jurors at risk? April 18, 2024 Are some reporters putting Trump jurors at risk? April 18, 2024
Turmoil at NPR after editor rips network for political bias April 17, 2024 Turmoil at NPR after editor rips network for political bias April 17, 2024

Share full article

Supported by

NPR in Turmoil After It Is Accused of Liberal Bias

An essay from an editor at the broadcaster has generated a firestorm of criticism about the network on social media, especially among conservatives.

Uri Berliner, wearing a dark zipped sweater over a white T-shirt, sits in a darkened room, a big plant and a yellow sofa behind him.

By Benjamin Mullin and Katie Robertson

NPR is facing both internal tumult and a fusillade of attacks by prominent conservatives this week after a senior editor publicly claimed the broadcaster had allowed liberal bias to affect its coverage, risking its trust with audiences.

Uri Berliner, a senior business editor who has worked at NPR for 25 years, wrote in an essay published Tuesday by The Free Press, a popular Substack publication, that “people at every level of NPR have comfortably coalesced around the progressive worldview.”

Mr. Berliner, a Peabody Award-winning journalist, castigated NPR for what he said was a litany of journalistic missteps around coverage of several major news events, including the origins of Covid-19 and the war in Gaza. He also said the internal culture at NPR had placed race and identity as “paramount in nearly every aspect of the workplace.”

Mr. Berliner’s essay has ignited a firestorm of criticism of NPR on social media, especially among conservatives who have long accused the network of political bias in its reporting. Former President Donald J. Trump took to his social media platform, Truth Social, to argue that NPR’s government funding should be rescinded, an argument he has made in the past.

NPR has forcefully pushed back on Mr. Berliner’s accusations and the criticism.

“We’re proud to stand behind the exceptional work that our desks and shows do to cover a wide range of challenging stories,” Edith Chapin, the organization’s editor in chief, said in an email to staff on Tuesday. “We believe that inclusion — among our staff, with our sourcing, and in our overall coverage — is critical to telling the nuanced stories of this country and our world.” Some other NPR journalists also criticized the essay publicly, including Eric Deggans, its TV critic, who faulted Mr. Berliner for not giving NPR an opportunity to comment on the piece.

In an interview on Thursday, Mr. Berliner expressed no regrets about publishing the essay, saying he loved NPR and hoped to make it better by airing criticisms that have gone unheeded by leaders for years. He called NPR a “national trust” that people rely on for fair reporting and superb storytelling.

“I decided to go out and publish it in hopes that something would change, and that we get a broader conversation going about how the news is covered,” Mr. Berliner said.

He said he had not been disciplined by managers, though he said he had received a note from his supervisor reminding him that NPR requires employees to clear speaking appearances and media requests with standards and media relations. He said he didn’t run his remarks to The New York Times by network spokespeople.

When the hosts of NPR’s biggest shows, including “Morning Edition” and “All Things Considered,” convened on Wednesday afternoon for a long-scheduled meet-and-greet with the network’s new chief executive, Katherine Maher , conversation soon turned to Mr. Berliner’s essay, according to two people with knowledge of the meeting. During the lunch, Ms. Chapin told the hosts that she didn’t want Mr. Berliner to become a “martyr,” the people said.

Mr. Berliner’s essay also sent critical Slack messages whizzing through some of the same employee affinity groups focused on racial and sexual identity that he cited in his essay. In one group, several staff members disputed Mr. Berliner’s points about a lack of ideological diversity and said efforts to recruit more people of color would make NPR’s journalism better.

On Wednesday, staff members from “Morning Edition” convened to discuss the fallout from Mr. Berliner’s essay. During the meeting, an NPR producer took issue with Mr. Berliner’s argument for why NPR’s listenership has fallen off, describing a variety of factors that have contributed to the change.

Mr. Berliner’s remarks prompted vehement pushback from several news executives. Tony Cavin, NPR’s managing editor of standards and practices, said in an interview that he rejected all of Mr. Berliner’s claims of unfairness, adding that his remarks would probably make it harder for NPR journalists to do their jobs.

“The next time one of our people calls up a Republican congressman or something and tries to get an answer from them, they may well say, ‘Oh, I read these stories, you guys aren’t fair, so I’m not going to talk to you,’” Mr. Cavin said.

Some journalists have defended Mr. Berliner’s essay. Jeffrey A. Dvorkin, NPR’s former ombudsman, said Mr. Berliner was “not wrong” on social media. Chuck Holmes, a former managing editor at NPR, called Mr. Berliner’s essay “brave” on Facebook.

Mr. Berliner’s criticism was the latest salvo within NPR, which is no stranger to internal division. In October, Mr. Berliner took part in a lengthy debate over whether NPR should defer to language proposed by the Arab and Middle Eastern Journalists Association while covering the conflict in Gaza.

“We don’t need to rely on an advocacy group’s guidance,” Mr. Berliner wrote, according to a copy of the email exchange viewed by The Times. “Our job is to seek out the facts and report them.” The debate didn’t change NPR’s language guidance, which is made by editors who weren’t part of the discussion. And in a statement on Thursday, the Arab and Middle Eastern Journalists Association said it is a professional association for journalists, not a political advocacy group.

Mr. Berliner’s public criticism has highlighted broader concerns within NPR about the public broadcaster’s mission amid continued financial struggles. Last year, NPR cut 10 percent of its staff and canceled four podcasts, including the popular “Invisibilia,” as it tried to make up for a $30 million budget shortfall. Listeners have drifted away from traditional radio to podcasts, and the advertising market has been unsteady.

In his essay, Mr. Berliner laid some of the blame at the feet of NPR’s former chief executive, John Lansing, who said he was retiring at the end of last year after four years in the role. He was replaced by Ms. Maher, who started on March 25.

During a meeting with employees in her first week, Ms. Maher was asked what she thought about decisions to give a platform to political figures like Ronna McDaniel, the former Republican Party chair whose position as a political analyst at NBC News became untenable after an on-air revolt from hosts who criticized her efforts to undermine the 2020 election.

“I think that this conversation has been one that does not have an easy answer,” Ms. Maher responded.

Benjamin Mullin reports on the major companies behind news and entertainment. Contact Ben securely on Signal at +1 530-961-3223 or email at [email protected] . More about Benjamin Mullin

Katie Robertson covers the media industry for The Times. Email: [email protected] More about Katie Robertson

Skip to main content
Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

NPR suspends veteran editor as it grapples with his public criticism

David Folkenflik

NPR suspended senior editor Uri Berliner for five days without pay after he wrote an essay accusing the network of losing the public's trust and appeared on a podcast to explain his argument. Uri Berliner hide caption

NPR suspended senior editor Uri Berliner for five days without pay after he wrote an essay accusing the network of losing the public's trust and appeared on a podcast to explain his argument.

NPR has formally punished Uri Berliner, the senior editor who publicly argued a week ago that the network had "lost America's trust" by approaching news stories with a rigidly progressive mindset.

Berliner's five-day suspension without pay, which began last Friday, has not been previously reported.

Yet the public radio network is grappling in other ways with the fallout from Berliner's essay for the online news site The Free Press . It angered many of his colleagues, led NPR leaders to announce monthly internal reviews of the network's coverage, and gave fresh ammunition to conservative and partisan Republican critics of NPR, including former President Donald Trump.

Conservative activist Christopher Rufo is among those now targeting NPR's new chief executive, Katherine Maher, for messages she posted to social media years before joining the network. Among others, those posts include a 2020 tweet that called Trump racist and another that appeared to minimize rioting during social justice protests that year. Maher took the job at NPR last month — her first at a news organization .

In a statement Monday about the messages she had posted, Maher praised the integrity of NPR's journalists and underscored the independence of their reporting.

"In America everyone is entitled to free speech as a private citizen," she said. "What matters is NPR's work and my commitment as its CEO: public service, editorial independence, and the mission to serve all of the American public. NPR is independent, beholden to no party, and without commercial interests."

The network noted that "the CEO is not involved in editorial decisions."

In an interview with me later on Monday, Berliner said the social media posts demonstrated Maher was all but incapable of being the person best poised to direct the organization.

"We're looking for a leader right now who's going to be unifying and bring more people into the tent and have a broader perspective on, sort of, what America is all about," Berliner said. "And this seems to be the opposite of that."

Conservative critics of NPR are now targeting its new chief executive, Katherine Maher, for messages she posted to social media years before joining the public radio network last month. Stephen Voss/Stephen Voss hide caption

Conservative critics of NPR are now targeting its new chief executive, Katherine Maher, for messages she posted to social media years before joining the public radio network last month.

He said that he tried repeatedly to make his concerns over NPR's coverage known to news leaders and to Maher's predecessor as chief executive before publishing his essay.

Berliner has singled out coverage of several issues dominating the 2020s for criticism, including trans rights, the Israel-Hamas war and COVID. Berliner says he sees the same problems at other news organizations, but argues NPR, as a mission-driven institution, has a greater obligation to fairness.

"I love NPR and feel it's a national trust," Berliner says. "We have great journalists here. If they shed their opinions and did the great journalism they're capable of, this would be a much more interesting and fulfilling organization for our listeners."

A "final warning"

The circumstances surrounding the interview were singular.

Berliner provided me with a copy of the formal rebuke to review. NPR did not confirm or comment upon his suspension for this article.

In presenting Berliner's suspension Thursday afternoon, the organization told the editor he had failed to secure its approval for outside work for other news outlets, as is required of NPR journalists. It called the letter a "final warning," saying Berliner would be fired if he violated NPR's policy again. Berliner is a dues-paying member of NPR's newsroom union but says he is not appealing the punishment.

The Free Press is a site that has become a haven for journalists who believe that mainstream media outlets have become too liberal. In addition to his essay, Berliner appeared in an episode of its podcast Honestly with Bari Weiss.

A few hours after the essay appeared online, NPR chief business editor Pallavi Gogoi reminded Berliner of the requirement that he secure approval before appearing in outside press, according to a copy of the note provided by Berliner.

In its formal rebuke, NPR did not cite Berliner's appearance on Chris Cuomo's NewsNation program last Tuesday night, for which NPR gave him the green light. (NPR's chief communications officer told Berliner to focus on his own experience and not share proprietary information.) The NPR letter also did not cite his remarks to The New York Times , which ran its article mid-afternoon Thursday, shortly before the reprimand was sent. Berliner says he did not seek approval before talking with the Times .

NPR defends its journalism after senior editor says it has lost the public's trust

Berliner says he did not get permission from NPR to speak with me for this story but that he was not worried about the consequences: "Talking to an NPR journalist and being fired for that would be extraordinary, I think."

Berliner is a member of NPR's business desk, as am I, and he has helped to edit many of my stories. He had no involvement in the preparation of this article and did not see it before it was posted publicly.

In rebuking Berliner, NPR said he had also publicly released proprietary information about audience demographics, which it considers confidential. He said those figures "were essentially marketing material. If they had been really good, they probably would have distributed them and sent them out to the world."

Feelings of anger and betrayal inside the newsroom

His essay and subsequent public remarks stirred deep anger and dismay within NPR. Colleagues contend Berliner cherry-picked examples to fit his arguments and challenge the accuracy of his accounts. They also note he did not seek comment from the journalists involved in the work he cited.

Morning Edition host Michel Martin told me some colleagues at the network share Berliner's concerns that coverage is frequently presented through an ideological or idealistic prism that can alienate listeners.

"The way to address that is through training and mentorship," says Martin, herself a veteran of nearly two decades at the network who has also reported for The Wall Street Journal and ABC News. "It's not by blowing the place up, by trashing your colleagues, in full view of people who don't really care about it anyway."

Several NPR journalists told me they are no longer willing to work with Berliner as they no longer have confidence that he will keep private their internal musings about stories as they work through coverage.

"Newsrooms run on trust," NPR political correspondent Danielle Kurtzleben tweeted last week, without mentioning Berliner by name. "If you violate everyone's trust by going to another outlet and sh--ing on your colleagues (while doing a bad job journalistically, for that matter), I don't know how you do your job now."

Berliner rejected that critique, saying nothing in his essay or subsequent remarks betrayed private observations or arguments about coverage.

Other newsrooms are also grappling with questions over news judgment and confidentiality. On Monday, New York Times Executive Editor Joseph Kahn announced to his staff that the newspaper's inquiry into who leaked internal dissent over a planned episode of its podcast The Daily to another news outlet proved inconclusive. The episode was to focus on a December report on the use of sexual assault as part of the Hamas attack on Israel in October. Audio staffers aired doubts over how well the reporting stood up to scrutiny.

"We work together with trust and collegiality everyday on everything we produce, and I have every expectation that this incident will prove to be a singular exception to an important rule," Kahn wrote to Times staffers.

At NPR, some of Berliner's colleagues have weighed in online against his claim that the network has focused on diversifying its workforce without a concomitant commitment to diversity of viewpoint. Recently retired Chief Executive John Lansing has referred to this pursuit of diversity within NPR's workforce as its " North Star ," a moral imperative and chief business strategy.

In his essay, Berliner tagged the strategy as a failure, citing the drop in NPR's broadcast audiences and its struggle to attract more Black and Latino listeners in particular.

"During most of my tenure here, an open-minded, curious culture prevailed. We were nerdy, but not knee-jerk, activist, or scolding," Berliner writes. "In recent years, however, that has changed."

Berliner writes, "For NPR, which purports to consider all things, it's devastating both for its journalism and its business model."

NPR investigative reporter Chiara Eisner wrote in a comment for this story: "Minorities do not all think the same and do not report the same. Good reporters and editors should know that by now. It's embarrassing to me as a reporter at NPR that a senior editor here missed that point in 2024."

Some colleagues drafted a letter to Maher and NPR's chief news executive, Edith Chapin, seeking greater clarity on NPR's standards for its coverage and the behavior of its journalists — clearly pointed at Berliner.

A plan for "healthy discussion"

On Friday, CEO Maher stood up for the network's mission and the journalism, taking issue with Berliner's critique, though never mentioning him by name. Among her chief issues, she said Berliner's essay offered "a criticism of our people on the basis of who we are."

Berliner took great exception to that, saying she had denigrated him. He said that he supported diversifying NPR's workforce to look more like the U.S. population at large. She did not address that in a subsequent private exchange he shared with me for this story. (An NPR spokesperson declined further comment.)

Late Monday afternoon, Chapin announced to the newsroom that Executive Editor Eva Rodriguez would lead monthly meetings to review coverage.

"Among the questions we'll ask of ourselves each month: Did we capture the diversity of this country — racial, ethnic, religious, economic, political geographic, etc — in all of its complexity and in a way that helped listeners and readers recognize themselves and their communities?" Chapin wrote in the memo. "Did we offer coverage that helped them understand — even if just a bit better — those neighbors with whom they share little in common?"

Berliner said he welcomed the announcement but would withhold judgment until those meetings played out.

In a text for this story, Chapin said such sessions had been discussed since Lansing unified the news and programming divisions under her acting leadership last year.

"Now seemed [the] time to deliver if we were going to do it," Chapin said. "Healthy discussion is something we need more of."

Disclosure: This story was reported and written by NPR Media Correspondent David Folkenflik and edited by Deputy Business Editor Emily Kopp and Managing Editor Gerry Holmes. Under NPR's protocol for reporting on itself, no NPR corporate official or news executive reviewed this story before it was posted publicly.

Katherine Maher
uri berliner

IMAGES

Essay on Non-Violence [ Concept, Features & Importance ]
Violence Essay
Violence Essay
Mahatma Gandhi and Non-Violence Information Sheet
(PDF) MAHATMA GANDHI: AN APOSTLE OF TRUTH, NON-VIOLENCE AND TOLERANCE
Domestic Violence Essay

VIDEO

സത്യത്തിന്റെ വഴിയിലൂടെ/ Mahathma Gandhi /October 2 /GANDHI JAYANTI# youtube#
Fallacies: Non-Sequitur, Faulty Analogy, Hasty Generalization
B.A 1st Year, Introduction of Aldous Huxley and his Essay- Non- Violence
Addressing These Liars and Defending my Character PT 2
This Is Water
B.A 1st Year , Essay- Non- Violence, Explanation of Unit- 1

COMMENTS

Essay on Gandhi and Nonviolence
Download. The Gandhian strategy is the combination of truth, sacrifice, non-violence, selfless service, and cooperation. According to Gandhi, one should be brave and not a coward. He should present his views, suggestions, and thoughts without being violent. One should fight a war with the weapons of truth and nonviolence.
Truth and Nonviolence: New Dimensions
Truth and non-violence are as old as the hills, Gandhi said. What he had done, he added, was only to apply them to life and its problems. There is no end to the repetition of these two words and comments thereon in his speeches and writings. The meanings he read into them and the interpretation he put on them constitute the new dimensions of ...
Truth and non-violence
To Gandhi, non-violence was not a negative concept but a positive sense of love. During the freedom struggle, Gandhi introduced the spirit of Satyagraha to the world. Whenever we think of Mahatma Gandhi, two words come to our mind - truth and non-violence - as he was a staunch believer in these two ideals. Born on October 2, 1869, Gandhi is ...
Mahatma Gandhi: As Apostle Of Truth, Non-violence And Tolerance: Essay
Gandhiji's martyrdom itself is caused to resurrect his principles and shine all over the world in eternity. Thus, his position as an apostle of truth, non-violence and tolerance in the political arena of 20th century is in its zenith. Works Cited. Copley, Antony, Gandhi against the Tide, 1987, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
PDF Truth and Non-Violence: The Foundations of Gandhian Philosophy
Keywords: Gandhi, Truth, Non-violence, Peace, Philosophy, Challenges. I. Introduction Truth and non-violence occupy an important place in the life of Mahatma Gandhi. These are the two main tools he used in his practical life as well. According to him truth and non-violence leads a person as pious, sympathetic and co-operative.
Gandhi's Philosophy of Nonviolence
5 For Gandhi, nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than any weapon of mass destruction. It is superior to brute force. It is a living force of power and no one has been or will ever be able to measure its limits or it's extend.Gandhi's nonviolence is the search for truth.
Gandhi: Toward a Vision of Nonviolence, Peace, and Justice
For Gandhi, being rooted in nonviolence, or ahimsa, was the only way to find truth; in accordance, he believed that satya (truth) and ahimsa (nonviolence ) were two sides of the same coins leading individuals to "the ultimate destination of life" (Adjei, 2013; Behera, 2016; Ghosh, 2020). Satyagraha is ultimately a reflection of Gandhi's firm belief in the dignity of human life which also ...
Truth And Non-violence
Truth And Non-violence. - By Arvind Sharma. TRUTH AND NONVIOLENCE are generally considered to be the two key ingredients of Gandhian thought. It is possible to pursue one without the other. It is thus possible to pursue truth without being nonviolent. Nations go to war believing truth is on their side, or that they are on the side of truth.
PDF Gandhian Concept of Truth and Non-Violence
Gandhi was a great supporter of Truth and Non-violence. He had a great importance to the concept of Truth and Non-Violence,Truth or Satya, Ahimsa or Non-Violance are foundation of Gandhi‟s philosophy.Mohandas Gandhi was born in the western part of British-ruled India on October 2, 1869. A timid
Gandhian Concept of Truth and Non-Violence
He had a great importance to the concept of Truth and Non-Violence,Truth or Satya, Ahimsa or Non-Violance are foundation of Gandhi‟s philosophy.Mohandas Gandhi was born in the western part of British-ruled India on October 2, 1869. A timid child, he was married at thirteen to a girl of the same age, Kasturbai.
Chapter-21: The Gospel of Non-Violence
It was only when I had learnt to reduce myself to zero that I was able to evolve the power of Satyagraha in South Africa. (H, 6-5-1939, p113) In this chapter, 'The Gospel of Non-Violence', Gandhiji talks about the path of true non-violence. This book, The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi, R. K. Prabhu & U. R. Rao is compiled to help in understanding ...
Truth and Nonviolence as Old as Hill: Mahatma Gandhi
Truth and Nonviolence as Old as Hill: Mahatma Gandhi. Today it has been 123 years since Gandhi was born. His assassination was a great shock. But, surprisingly, his demise banded those in India who had lost belief in non-violent co-existence. As a matter of fact, Gandhi's death taught everyone about the worth of communal affinity and social ...
PDF Truth and Non-violence: a Gandhian Concept
of Truth and Non-Violence elaborately in this paper. Keywords: Truth or Satyagraha, Non-Violence or Ahimsa, Characteristics of Non-Violence, Characteristics of Satyagrahi, Identification of Truth and God. Introduction : Mahatma Gandhi was the Pioneer of Non-Violence and a great supporter of Truth. He was born on 2nd October 1869. His prominent
The Ethics of Nonviolence: Essays by Robert L. Holmes
This is a collection of essays by Robert L. Holmes, a philosopher known primarily for his extensive body of work on nonviolence and war, including his influential book, On War and Morality (Princeton University Press, 1989). The essays include some of Holmes' early articles on American pragmatism and ethical theory.
The Non-Violent Path towards Truth
Gandhi personified this message in life and spirit. This essay highlights the essence of non-violent attitude and, through the Gandhian framework, shows how it logically leads to the path of truth. The truth that shall set us free, from maladies of 'misconceived notions' and 'chaotic understanding of events'.
Nonviolence and Gandhi's truth: A Method for Moral and Political
This essay will demonstrate that the political theory of Mahatma Gandhi provides us with a novel way to understand and arbitrate the conflict among moral projects. Gandhi offers us a vision of political action that insists on the viability of the search for truth and the implicit possibility of adjudicating among competing claims to truth.
PDF Gandhian Concept of Truth and Non-Violence
Abstract: Gandhi was a great supporter of Truth and Non-violence. He had a great importance to the concept of Truth and Non-Violence.Truth or Satya, Ahimsa or Non-Violance are foundation of Ganghi's philosophy. The word 'Non-violence' is a translation of the Sanskrit term 'Ahimsa'. He stated that in its positive form, 'Ahimsa'
Essay on Truth and Non-violence
Download. Mahatma Gandhi believed equality and peace need the complete truth to be achieved. He began to care deeply about this even at a younger age. After he was convicted of lying out of carelessness in school, he began to think that a man of truth needs to be a man of care (Gandhi 13). His care for truth grew as he got older and became more ...
Translating nonviolence: Ahimsa, satyagraha, and the civil rights
As a path to truth, nonviolence required tolerance, empathy, and the kind of humility that was bound up with perseverance and courage—the kind of humility that many civil rights activists would demonstrate when translating nonviolence. ... In 1959, in an essay entitled "The Social Organization of Nonviolence," Martin Luther King wrote ...
Truth and Non-Violence: A Foundation of a New World Order
Truth and Non-Violence in Gandhian Philosophy: Truth and non-violence have been two foundational stones of Gandhian philosophy. Truth is the end and non-violence is the means to achieve this end. These are the two guiding principles for Gandhi. His whole life was devoted to these two principles. Truth: ADVERTISEMENTS:
Truth And Non-Violence, By Mahatma Gandhi
Truth and non-violence are generally considered to be the two key constituent of Gandhian ideology. Gandhi's life was rooted in India's religious tradition with its emphasis on a passionate search for truth, a profound respect for life, the ideal of non-violence and the readiness to sacrifice all for the knowledge of God.He lives his whole life in the perpetual quest of truth: 'I live ...
PDF UNIT 6 GANDHI'S VIEWS ON TRUTH
Accordingly, Truth and Non-violence, considered as allied concepts since times immemorial have had an intense impact on him. Gandhi's. 78 Philosophy of Gandhi passion for truth is aptly summarised in the following words: 'Passion for Truth was the dominating urge in his life and it gave him immense power over the minds and hearts of
Essay on Non-Violence For Students in English
Non-violence is the force of love. Believe it or not, love is a weapon stronger than the atom bomb. Non-violence is an old doctrine. In the East as well as West non-violence as an article of faith, or philosophy of life, has been practised from time immemorial. The middle ages, for whatever reason, have been unusually violent.
Opinion
The sooner Americans confront this truth, the sooner we can fix this mess and broker for peace. J.D. Vance ( @JDVance1 ), a Republican, is the junior senator from Ohio.
NPR editor Uri Berliner resigns after Free Press essay accuses network
Uri Berliner had worked at NPR for a quarter-century when he wrote the essay that would abruptly end his tenure. On April 9, the Free Press published 3,500 words from Berliner, a senior business ...
NPR in Turmoil After It Is Accused of Liberal Bias
In his essay, Mr. Berliner laid some of the blame at the feet of NPR's former chief executive, John Lansing, who said he was retiring at the end of last year after four years in the role. He was ...
NPR editor Uri Berliner resigns with blast at new CEO
They asked for clarity on, among other things, how Berliner's essay and the resulting public controversy would affect news coverage. Yet some colleagues privately said Berliner's critique carried ...
NPR Editor Uri Berliner suspended after essay criticizing network : NPR
NPR suspended senior editor Uri Berliner for five days without pay after he wrote an essay accusing the network of losing the public's trust and appeared on a podcast to explain his argument. Uri ...
Chaos in Dubai as UAE records heaviest rainfall in 75 years
Chaos ensued in the United Arab Emirates after the country witnessed the heaviest rainfall in 75 years, with some areas recording more than 250 mm of precipitation in fewer than 24 hours, the ...