Counterpoint: Buddha’s non-violence versus Gandhi’s pacifism
By Vivekanand Jha*
Reading Mahatma Gandhi, the apostle of Non-violence, I stood flummoxed; the cause of my transfixion was the prescription of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi to the people of Britain. The World War -2 was staring at the face of the people of Britain; Adolf Hitler was on the threshold of attacking Britain. Winston Churchill, the then Prime Minister of Britain, was at his wits’ end; France had already fallen; it was the time for Britain to defend its fortress. However, Britain was not sure how it could do it, all alone, with Adolf Hitler going gung ho with his jingoism. Churchill’s desperate letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt of the United States of America, urging him to intervene, had fallen on deaf ears as the USA was vacillating on its decision.
The scenario was bleak; it appeared that Britain too would finally end up as a casualty the way France had! During such a sombre mood, enveloping Britain, the Mahatma stepped in to suggest the British people: The people of Britain should leave their homes and hearths; they should move out, offering themselves as sacrificial goats to the German army who, if their hearts melted, would let them go; return their homes and hearths, grant mercy to their women and children, if they decided otherwise, let the women and children too fall casualty to sensual aspirations of German soldiers.
In sharp contrast to Gandhian prescription, Winston Churchill had sought to assuage the concern of his fellow compatriots: “We will fight them in mountains, valleys, streets and alleys, and will not allow the fascist Germans to capture even an inch of our land.”
Significantly, in the aftermath of reading the two contrasting scenarios, I contemplated about the Gandhian prescription. Was Mohandas Gandhi presuming the British people to be as gullible as Indians, to succumb to his spellbinding charm?
The Moplah violence of 1921 was a burning instance of Gandhi taking Muslims for a ride on his Khilafat Movement, the adverse consequences for the same were the butchery of thousands of innocent Hindus. I was left wondering for hours, with my mind trying to dissect the Gandhian vision in all its myriad aspects and dimensions: Was Gandhi endeavouring to take India back to its Somnath days when thousands of people, like cowards, would watch as spectators when Mahmood of Ghazni would unleash his depredation of the Sanctum Sanctorum?
What did Gandhian pacifism signify? After a deeper reflection on his thought process, I thought, perhaps Gandhi was striving to usher in the vision of pacifism worldwide to eliminate violence from society, while taking cue from the Buddha.
However, as I began delving deeper into the Buddha’s profound ideology of non-violence, I stood deeply disconcerted by Gandhian pacifism seeking to controvert Buddha’s non-violence. Whereas the Buddha was innately focussing on individual transformation, he seldom dwelt on issues of society and nation. Gandhi was seeking pacifism as the solution to confront the monster of violence and unleashing of mayhem in this world of hegemons, barbarians and invaders.
Especially when the Bhagavad Gita prescribes war as a means to confront the monster, how could Gandhi take recourse to pacifism as the means to confront the unsavoury face of barbarism? I wondered. Suddenly a question struck my memory cell: had Sri Krishna, exhibiting the pacifism, bowed to Duryodhana, even on being denied the five villages as the recompense for Pandavas, to buy peace with the bully Duryodhana, would He have succeeded in His mission? Would Duryodhana have allowed Pandavas to rest in peace, if Pandavas, exhibiting pacifism, had sought to rebuild their life away from Duryodhana’s glare?
The answer is a resounding ‘ No’. My mind suddenly dug into the famous strategic letter that the the Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee wrote to the then US President Bill Clinton, seeking to elucidate the fundamental reasons for India going nuclear, India, to live in peace with its belligerent neighbour, who is already a nuclear state, needed to cultivate nuclear arsenals by way of minimum deterrent. Vajpayee was pointing towards China. Thus, the violence, even though it cannot be an antidote to violence, yet the terror has to be matched only with the corresponding strength or else, the battle is lost, even before it has kicked off.
The dialogue between Singh Senapati and the Buddha in Vaishali bears testimony of the Buddha’s holistic vision of non-violence. Significantly, when Singh Senapati posed a question, “My Lord, you are the beacon light for humanity at this time. Pray, tell me, what is my duty as a General of Magadha Army? Should I give up my arms, in light of non-violence, the fundamental vision of your ideology, in order to follow the dhamma, in its exclusivity and holistic form?”
“No”, said the Buddha. “This is your dharma to exhibit weapons for mass protection. Non-violence connotes one should not take recourse to violence. For instance, if enemies attack your territory, it is your right to protect it, and, therefore, in your duty to protect your territory, if violence happens, it is not to be construed as such, for the purpose of doing good action to protect your people, does not qualify as violence.”
Significantly, the Buddha never said that non-violence should assume the form of pusillanimity. Ashoka later, despite having banned the killings of animals, had never dismantled the army; in fact, he had maintained the army. Even the capital punishment of death existed during Ashoka’s reign. Hence, against the backdrop, Gandhian propagation of pacifism had nothing to do with Buddha’s non-violence.
Vajpayee’s dubbing the Buddha as the United Nations of his time–today the United Nations is a defunct organisation much like the League of Nations, its earlier avatar–holds water as the kings of that time and era. Even a king as powerful as Ajatasatru would respect the Buddha’s opinion on war against his neighbours.
The Buddha had dispersed the armies arrayed against each other. That was the Buddha magic no one ever could duplicate before Him, nor anyone ever could after him.
*Author, Academician and Public Intellectual. The views expressed are personal.
