Assessing the Validity of Gandhian Ahimsa in Modern Politics and Society

When discussing the philosophies of Mahatma Gandhi, one cannot help but question the authenticity and applicability of his ideals. While Gandhi's advocacy for non-violence, or Ahimsa, has been a cornerstone of his political and ethical beliefs, it has also been widely criticized for its perceived insensitivity and impracticality in the real world. This article aims to explore the validity of Gandhian Ahimsa, its pros and cons, and whether the principles can be feasibly applied in modern political and societal contexts.

Did Gandhi Truly Practice What He Preached?

One of the primary criticisms levied against Gandhi is that his principles were nothing more than hypocritical. It is suggested that his teachings, while well-intentioned, were merely a facade and a "cheap copy" of other peoples' principles, failing to be original or deeply rooted in his own cultural heritage. Critics argue that Gandhi's views on non-violence were selective and misplaced, particularly in the face of oppressive and violent regimes.

For instance, during both World Wars, Gandhi supported the British Empire, which some might argue is contradictory to his non-violent ideals. Furthermore, his personal adherence to the principle of non-violence was questionable. There are documented instances where Gandhi failed to live up to his teachings; for example, he slapped his wife, Kasturba Gandhi, an act that was widely criticized.

The Dangers of Exclusively Practicing Ahimsa

Supporters of Ahimsa argue that it has a significant potential to create a better world, particularly when widely followed. However, critics point out that the principle becomes ineffective and even dangerous when those in power do not practice it, leaving unarmed civilians vulnerable to violence. The biggest con of Ahimsa is the risk it poses to the safety of those who choose to practice it. In theory, if less than 100% of people adhere to non-violence, it can leave the majority at risk when faced with aggression.

This is why the ability to defend oneself is often deemed more important than solely embracing non-violence. In the Bhagavad Gita, for example, the right to self-defense is strongly emphasized, even against a belligerent and malevolent enemy. The Gita teaches that when facing an enemy, one should not only defend oneself but do so without malice or hatred.

The Philosophical Underpinnings of Ahimsa

The practice of Ahimsa, as espoused by Gandhi, is not an absolute principle but rather a guideline to be followed under certain circumstances. Buddhist teachings, for instance, do not advocate for absolute non-violence. While Buddha preached non-violence, there are also instances from folklore where he took action against enemies, such as the mythical figure Padmasambhava, who wielded the Vajrastara in defense.

Additionally, religions like Jainism, while promoting non-violence, do not support it to the extent of prohibiting self-defense or the protection of oneself from harm. The concept of Ahimsa is more nuanced and context-dependent, suggesting that it may not be suitable for all situations.

Is Non-Violence a Perversion of Virtue?

Some argue that Gandhi's teachings have become a "perverted sense of virtue." While it is commendable to strive for goodness, one cannot be so obsessed with this virtue that it leads to harmful or impractical outcomes. For example, Gandhi's advice to Hindus to sacrifice themselves in the face of Muslim aggression during the partition of India is seen as an improper and ineffective response to a complex political situation.

The idea that one must always act non-violently, even in self-defense, can lead to a dangerous situation where individuals or groups are left vulnerable to attack. This is fundamentally at odds with the principle of self-preservation, which is a universal right sanctioned by both natural law and religious texts like the Bhagavad Gita.

Ultimately, the application of Gandhian Ahimsa in modern politics and society must be critically evaluated. While non-violence can be a powerful force for change, it must also be balanced with the need to protect and defend oneself and one's communities from harm. The principles must be contextualized and applied judiciously to ensure they serve the greater good.