In spite of some shortcomings, democracy in India is very strong, unlike any of its neighbours. Not even a casual comparison could be made with other nations. These democratic values took shape here only through the freedom struggle that was fought in Gandhian way.
Those who reject Gandhi’s methods should say how many armed struggles succeeded in the world history. Anyone with historical awareness would realise that during the last one hundred years, countries all over the world, that took to arms, gave nothing but destruction to their people.
If we look at the reasons for their destructive nature, we can see the absence of special qualities that are unique to the methods of Gandhi. What did the much talked about Russian and Chinese revolutions bring to their people? Did they bring anything other than destruction and slavery? History today has opened up this aspect clearly. Still, those who justified those revolutions till yesterday are, with no sense of shame, trying to find fault with Gandhi
From the Russian and Chinese Revolutions to the group clashes in Africa today, we see one thing in common. They first used arms for the internal contradictions, killed each other and vanished. Doubts, treachery and differences resulted in massacres. Every institution that took to arms has killed mostly its own people. Be it Russian, Chinese or any other armed war in the world, there is no single exception.
The reason is, violence never considers compromise between contradictions and the opportunity to move forward with collective effort. It makes dialogue impossible. The absence of any dialogue makes the armed society rigid. It becomes timid and loses faith. Thus, its internal contradictions increase and bring along destruction.
Today, we hear people casually referring to the experiments in Russia and China as sundry mistakes and setbacks in while bringing in communism. They do not consider the fact that billions of people vanished like worms and insects. Armed fight marches on burning the bridges behind. It believes just in destruction and the price of its mistakes is very high. It is always the poor and humble who pay that price, with their lives. Stalinists and Maoists may very well contend that wiping out the Klucks and the Cultural Revolution were mistakes. Do they have an answer for those who perished?
Armed struggle always marches ahead with a rigid conclusion that leaves no space for any dialogue. But no genius can, at any stage, take such a decision based on history and society. It would suffice if one looks at the history of the last fifty years. How many twists and turns that are unbelievable? How many marvelous possibilities? How many new forces? A struggle which considers that limit would always take into account its opposite force. It will always be a dialogue.
All opinions on Gandhian way have been put forward just because it allows dialogue. We do not have proper records about the struggle by Subash Chandra Bose. Subash did not take up an armed struggle. He was exploited by the then world forces. Within his Movement there were furious disputes between the North and the South. Above all, his so called armed struggle ended up as a farce. The Japanese used his army for its errands. Official documents reveal that it was in just one war front that INA got involved in direct action.
The most important point is that Subash tread on the blood of those men for whom he took to arms. He was witness to casualty of millions of poor Tamils and Indians on the Siam Death Railway Project. His conscience was silent about that human catastrophe. Would Gandhi have remained silent on hearing such an information?
If we look at the world politics of this century, we see the destruction resulting from meaningless struggles. Most of these were started by some intellectuals and nurtured by various power-centres. They manage to survive due to arrogance, lust for power, the resultant hatred and a chain reaction of violence.
At this moment, at least fifteen countries in Africa are being devastated by internal wars. Congo, Somalia, Ethiopia, Sierra Leon, Rwanda – we can list out the countries flooded with human blood. What triggered these internal wars? The simple answer would be the mistrust among the clans. How did that mistrust surface? By weapons! We seek justice from the very nations that produce and supply those arms to both groups!
We rumble what the world was doing when our race perished in the Eelam? We do not realize that one fourth of the world is being destructed by this kind of internal wars. We do not talk about what we did for those internal wars. A section of our intellectuals try to inculcate among our own people that attitude and the rage for arms, which caused those wars and destruction. And here they are praised for championing the cause of compassion.
Should Africa be razed by internal wars? Should all racist groups die in thousands fighting for the right to split into separate nations? Isn’t there any way to weed out those mistrusts? Can’t we find out those ways? What happened to the Irish freedom struggle and the Spanish internal war? When they can compromise and Europe can go to the extent of becoming a single nation, why should we create internal wars in Asia and Africa and ruin ourselves?
We have a great example before us, not only for Africa, but for the entire world. It was only Nelson Mandela, who had any ‘justification’ for taking up armed struggle. There was cruel apartheid and incomparable exploitation persisted. Many a times the situation demanded an armed struggle. The members of his party who preferred violence parted ways with him.
But, he had learnt from Gandhi. He taught his people a struggle by which they can improve themselves. For that, he imprisoned himself. I would say that the imprisonment of Mandela in Roban Island for twenty seven years is the greatest Gandhian struggle and Satyagraha of this century. It ensured participation of his people in a political movement and paved way for dialogue among them.
Moreover, it opened up dialogue with the conscience of his foes. We know that at one stage all the nations of the Whites took part in Mandela’s struggle with fervor. The freedom that South Africa attained was the result of that dialogue. It was not a freedom for the Africans alone, but for all the inhabitants including the Whites. It was an Independence attained without violence! It is history that we witnessed.
Looking at Mandela’s life, we see that he was for ever compromising. He was ceaselessly holding talks, with various factions of African National Congress, various sub-national institutions, the Zulus and the Whites. His biographers call him a great ‘expert of compromise’.
When there was bloodshed in Eelam and Congo was disintegrating, we watched the telecast of transfer of power in Africa resulting from peaceful elections. The lessons that we hesitate to learn were enacted there.
What would have happened, if Nelson Mandela had took to arms? Another Rwanda! Another Congo! Greatest bloodshed that humanity would have seen might have resulted. I recall watching on the television the historically important day on which Mandela took charge after the conduct of the first ever multi-racial election in Africa. Zulus had gathered on the streets with weapons, out of fear of becoming secondary citizens. We know who created that fear and why. I sat shocked all through the night after watching their violent shouts. I thought, going by the history of African countries, severe bloodshed was on the anvil.
But, Mandela overcame that crisis with his Gandhian weapon. He agreed to power sharing with the Zulu leaders with an open mind. By his sacrifice and peerless patience, he converted that historic situation into a golden one. That is how South Africa survives with democracy in the African continent, which is shrouded by dark wars.
This stands testimony to the everlasting victory of Gandhian ways and their relevance in the contemporary world. All armed wars can be cited as examples for the sure defeat of the ways of arms and the resultant destruction. Still, we are confronting the tirades of those filled with hatred. It is their hatred that seeks arms. We will converse with that hatred tirelessly. Let us ceaselessly hold talks with that hatred and always be prepared for a handshake.
Gandhi Now 