'Non-Violent Peoples' Movement Around The World'
by Rajiv Vora (Sarah, Dharamsala. November 22, 2001)
Rajiv Vora (Gandhi Peace Foundation)
Dear friends:
I will just outline in a very brief, the nature of what we may call
for our facility, the Gandhian movements worldwide but basically in
fact it is the influence of Mahatma Gandhi's both won methods that
is non-violent methods of fighting injustice, fighting oppression,
fighting for democratic rights, fighting for economic and other
livelihood rights and fighting against violence of various types
- where the opponent is very perceptible. You know, in political
struggles, against whom you are fighting - this is largely is one
area. The other area is in the fight against an invisible enemy -
which is very difficult. And 'Swaraj' is all about that.
'Swaraj' is the idea, is the philosophy of not only fighting
the visible adversary, but also the invisible adversary —
which is within us —
our own habits, our own outlook, our own materialism with it.
So, these two types of influences Mahatma Gandhi has
cast on the thinking and methods about proper life, proper conduct, etc.
The first is very important. Of course, the use of non-violent
methods for democratic, political rights and livelihood and against
injustice. Here we have an array of movement - largely we can say
that one of the most known movements has been that of that of Martin
Luther King in America, who fought for the civil rights of the
black population. And one of the most celebrated movements again
of the 20th century outside India is of the African non-violent
struggle against apartheid regime. And which is successfully showed
us in modern times and with the modern civilisation, example of
the success of efficacy of non-violent means. Mandela was a young
handsome man when he went to jail and when he came out he was an
elderly gentleman. He was in jail for 28 years. Outside of the
jail where he was imprisoned where his leadership was not directly
effectual, the movement continued. There were many other streams. But
non-violence did remain the credo of the movement. And therefore,
we see that it was not only the political freedom, which the blacks
got back, but also they could remove apartheid. Removing apartheid
was a step towards 'Swaraj'. Because it is not a tangible
economic right, it is not a tangible political right in a way to
just 'voting' etc. But, accepting another person as equal —
which means accepting with humility not only subordination but,
rejecting your own domination —
the idea of my domination, idea of my ego, idea of my superiority.
So, removing ones own arrogance, ego and
domination is a step towards equalising of the society.
Whatever equalizing —
even the politics with the lesser people is a step
towards 'Swaraj'. So we can say that that was one of the
major successes of non-violence in South Africa.
Similarly, Martin Luther King is one of the most celebrated
movements. I said this to the American people also because; generally
we know it as a movement of the blacks. But when Martin Luther King
organised the 'great march' to Washington, whose effect was almost
like the salt march in India, which shook the confidence of the
empire there, out of 2,60,000 people 60,000 were white people. Which
means that there is an essential goodness in the adversary - that
the entire white population is not evil. Even within the white there
is an element of goodness, which Martin Luther King was able to
take out for the spiritual progress of the white people. This is
a spiritual progress of the white people. This is spirituality-
where once segregation, injustice and violence which was done
in the name of colour - that somebody is inferior because he is
of a different colour of his skin. To make another human being
inferior is a 'spiritual violence'. And he removed this 'spiritual
violence' from the American society. He made white people to accept
the equality of the black people. So, this is a major aspect of
non-violent struggle but it was a civil right movement. It's front
was civil right movement but it's inner self or the inner motto was
spiritual. This must be kept in mind. Every civil right movement
to acquire the right of equality with the people who think that
they are superior politically, economically or even spiritually and
culturally and intellectually - which also happens in the families
or among friends. Similarly, even in spiritual arena also there
is violence. We see lot of violence of these kinds in the area of
religion - thinking of other people, the followers with no light
within and exploiting their sentiments for the purposes, which
are non-spiritual. So, that's what I say although in this fight
for civil rights, democratical rights - its front is political
and the soul is spiritual. Front was to acquire political equality
with the dominant ruling people, but it's inside was to establish
equality which was denied due to the fact that there was a belief
among the dominant population that because somebody has a certain
colour, or born in a certain family, certain nation or a race he is
inferior. This spiritual inferiority was inflicted into some people
was removed with a political means. So, this was a great influence
of Mahatma Gandhi on Martin Luther King. He had never met Mahatma
Gandhi. He certainly came across Mahatma Gandhi's biography and
then he started reading and finally came up with non-violence.
Forget this idea that non-violence is docile. I think all of you
have probably unnecessarily exercised this complex that non-violence
is something, which makes people docile and not forthright. No
- that docility is not from violence but forthrightness and
truthfulness. Truth always needs not to be shouted. If you're right
you need not to be angry and if you're wrong you cannot afford to
be angry. So, if you have a right you need not shout and become
angry. But the strength of truth should come out. Strength of truth
is in steadfastness.
I have experienced, in America, they have no tradition of
non-violence. In the recent history of non-violent tradition in
religion and in certain sects etc always been there in the entire
race. As I yesterday said, the ultimate human question in every
religions are of the conception for maximising non-violence.
No religion preaches violence. Only to maximise non-violence within
human being, religions have come up as a discipline. So non-violence
is always there. My point is that when the black population wanted to
acquire non-violent means, they had no culture of non-violence. Point
is this —
they had no dominant culture of non-violence. So, they
had to undergo training. This training was extremely technical.
If you read Gene Sharp ete etc who has written huge volumes on
non-violence and non-violent methods —
I generally say that an Indian must not be swayed by these books.
They are very dangerous books for Indians.
Because, they take non-violence as just techniques,
just technical aspects! Because the non-violence grows from within
is not there. But these things are written for such people whose
thought has become extremely modernized and materialistic thoughts
gone into their culture so deep as to completely deny the idea of
the soul force as an active political, social thought as an active
living cultural thought. In India and Tibet these have been an
acting political, social and cultural thought. They live a life,
which is 90 per cent non-violent or basically non-violent life
where violence is only sporadic. So, the blacks had to undergo
this training. If you see these training sessions of these people,
they are trained into two groups. One is the adversary and the
other protagonists of non-violence. And the adversaries would
keep abuse on them and also in the heightened course of training,
given some physical blows on them. You have to train yourself —
not to 'give back' —
like those Pathans under the leadership of Gaffer Khan,
who tied their hands —
our culture is as such that anybody insults us we automatically
chop off his hands. That was
our culture, idea of bravery. Pathans are the greatest achievements
of Abdul Gaffer Khan —
one of the most valuable contributions of non-violence to India.
Because, he turned those people who were
lions and tigers into 'lions and tigers of non-violence'.
Abdul Gaffer Khan has not been appreciated properly in the history.
Even Christianity has the greatest symbol of non-violence —
Jesus Christ himself.
Buddhism and Hinduism had series of saints and gurus given
examples of non-violence. Sikhism had so many gurus who allowed their
heads to be chopped off. In Islam also there had been. But these
symbols have not come up in the modern times. In the modern times,
Gaffer Khan was the only apostle of non-violence in Islam. However,
Gaffer Khan has not been canonized. Others have been canonized. Even
the fake non-violent apostles have been canonized. So, in these
training sessions, these black young people used to tie up their
hands and being abused. They had to undergo such training, which
can only be explained technically. 'You do this', 'You do this',
'You do that' etc.
I spoke about non-violence and spiritual non-violence. They could not
rather appreciate much. They could not see the point. Then I told
them 'Look, where does these steadfastness come from? When these
black young men not knowing that they have these spirituality and
they are familiar with spirituality vocabulary of non-violence,
they are completely unfamiliar of this spiritual vocabulary of
non-violence. They were trained in the technical vocabulary of
non-violence. But when they entered into the prohibited areas in
the shops, in the bus stations and when the police started beating
them with batons - they continued doing what they learned during
the training sessions in the actual situation - tied up their hands,
tied up with each other and got beaten up severely. And none of them
raised a single finger. I said 'you call this technical vocabulary
may be your vocabulary where training the most technical, but where
does this force of steadfastness at the end to their belief that
they don't have to rise a finger - where does that come from? You
may not name it. But it works'. That is spiritual force. So much
violence was heard on them, so much abuse was heard on them. But
they did not raise a finger. So, this was the training. This is the
experience of non-violence of the people who are probably forgotten,
people who need to be reminded of them.
During the entire time of arms race, entire peace movement in
Europe and America, their spiritual, political and cultural leader
was Mahatma Gandhi. Mostly. But this is one part. The other part
of the influence of Mahatma Gandhi in the peoples' movements
is the other aspect where there is no direct adversary. They
are not fighting for any democratic rights, against apartheid or
against Communism or any corrupt regime as it happened in Thailand,
Indonesia and at various places. But, they were searching for a way,
which is non-exploitative. In west, this is going on a major stream
of upward moving cultural and spiritual movement of a society is
to learn from Mahatma Gandhi which is the a way of life, how do
we live an organised life, so that whatever we use doesn't come
through a process of exploiting others. Our lives should be so lived
that it doesn't allow violence to be perpetuated. Today's modern
life is basically a life of violence. As Jesus Christ said 'when
I see this piece of bread, I see blood'. Every affluent family in
India, America and Europe 'when you eat you must see blood in your
plate'. Because your one plate when you fill your stomach, in order
to fill your stomach may be twenty other children are being thrown
to most hunger in African and Asian countries. This awareness of
'how can we live and what is the way of life' in increasing. When
a farmer loses his piece land in Punjab, UP or in Bihar that is not
visible to a farmer in Netherlands or in Denmark or in Germany or in
America. This violence is not seen directly. Because the distance is
so much. This is the market force, which has created great distance
between the consumer and the producer and you don't know what is
happening on both hands. You may think that when you consume you
think more and more you consume better is the standard of life
because; this is the yardstick of development you are focusing. If
you look at the whole debate of development and progress in west,
basically the high standard academical and intellectual debate -
their all yardsticks are such that they can maintain progress and
development only by heightening violence on others. And if those
others if revolt against them, then in order to crush that revolt,
they've acquired all the armaments of the world, not only the
armaments of the world, but also the right to use those armaments
arbitrarily and to disarm others equally arbitrarily.
When Samdhong Rinpoche was talking of 'Swaraj' yesterday, he
was talking of the comprehensive idea of non-violence as a method of
fighting against injustice, acquiring freedom, acquiring democratic
right. But this process is such that by doing so you do not allow
the forces of other violence to take over your movement. Then, even
after achieving the political freedom, your society would not be
divided among exploiters and the exploited. The other more violent
forms will not take an institutional form as it is taken everywhere
in the modern world - where violence has been institutionalised
in the various mechanisms of market, in the various mechanisms
of political institutions etc etc. So, this whole debate on
'alternative' is about that. That was Mahatma Gandhi talked
about 'Swaraj'- that is not merely independence I wanted
'Swaraj'. A question every Tibetan youth must be exercised of
- 'What do we do?' We must have a political freedom. Spirituality
is not available to everybody'. Everybody cannot attain spiritual
heights. But non-violence doesn't demand as a pre-condition,
a heightened spiritual status.
If you can make friends with others, how can you say that you are
not non-violent? Non-violence begins from there. That sentiment is
non-violence. Your brotherly love, your motherly love- the motherly
love is the heightened non-violence. The other name for is 'love
force' or 'mind force'. It doesn't go waste ever. Probably that is
the only thing in the world, which does not create waste. Otherwise
anything which you invest or which you use creates waste in terms
of byproduct.
Non-violence is not as a dormant force —
is just not limited to Indians or Tibetans.
It has acquired such a large constituency
all over the world —
among all the oppressed, all those people's
political rights are taken away, all whose civil liberties are
restricted —
they are all taking to non-violence. There is a
practicality. I would say, even as a matter of expediency in the
beginning, why I say this although non-violence is not expediency -
it can never be expediency. Mahatma Gandhi had to say it when he
saw the riots were taking place in Calcutta and later in Bihar 'this
is because we use non-violence as expediency where as I entertained
this idea for 50 years. Non-violence we had acquired was a matter of
credo. It has become a creed with us. I thought that. But my God,
I am wrong'. It was one of the greatest shocks he received at the
end of his life. So, non-violence can never be expediency. But the
point is that as many things we use because we may not be fully
convinced about the efficacy of it but we must be convinced about
the inefficacy of the violence —
then you'd have a better chance to
understand the efficacy of non-violence. If you don't have a positive
faith in non-violence, begin somewhere to acquire the positive faith
in something, which is strongest. Choice is not between violence
and non-violence. Choice is between an in in-officious method and
officious method —
a method which is stronger and a method which
is weaker. Yes. Every tool, every method is always in consonance
with the objective or the purpose you want to fulfill. So, what
is the purpose of your freedom? This I think as much as you go
into the working out the purpose of Tibetan movement, your vows
and as much as you can rug up be more and more understanding of
the Tibetan identity. If the goal is to preserve your essential
'self' and not to allow your 'self' to be completely transformed —
you may have a Tibetan name and a Tibetan face but if you are
changed within —
if your mind is changed then you are a Tibetan
names' sake. Names' sake Tibetan can live anywhere —
he can live in
India, America. Many Indians living in America, England, France and
Germany permanently —
those are names' sake Indians. So, you can
have a names' sake Tibetan population! I personally always feel so
much as self-denigration when I become a names' sake Rajiv Vora. I
cannot imagine myself a names' sake Indian. Problem is not just a
choice between violence and non-violence. Problem is not the choice
between 'Swaraj' and independence —
spiritual independence
and political independence. Forget all these philosophical things if
you don't like it. Just forget. Do you love yourself? My question to
yourself, if you love your country, then what is this love? Define
it, to which your loyalty is ultimately attached? If you just want
to become a names' sake Tibetan then your idea of political freedom
is as good as all those movements, which achieved political freedom
through violent means. As I said yesterday, give me one example
where violence has succeeded. In China? In America? They have become demons!
Do you want to become demons?
You know yourself more than I do. It is a matter of reality. It
is a matter of self-identity. Your self-respect lies in 'what you
are'. And your self-respect does not lie in what you are but lies
in how you 'appear' to be —
your outward appearance —
then freedom could be defined in
any fashion you want. Then you do not have to fight at all for
the Tibetan freedom. There is no point talking about Tibetan
freedom. Then you can just settle in any country and become a
free citizen. Who stops you from becoming a free citizen, with all
human rights? If human right is supreme, then you'd have all have
human rights in America and your children would have even political
rights there once they settle down. Or may be even in India. Then
that would be a 'personal freedom'. Do you think you as a person
with a particular identity without being a Tibetan what you are? I
will be completely lost without being an Indian. My self-respect is
gone. Then I am a floating dead leaf —
a dry dead leaf that floats
and goes anywhere where the wind takes it. Do you want to become
that? It will have freedom. That would be a dead Indian. That would
be a dead Tibetan. All those living outside India are dead leaves,
which has no useful purpose now. So this is the question. Gandhi
discussed these difficult questions. You understand 'Swaraj'
from this stand point of view.
You work out what you are. When it is freedom 'what free'?
Which things you want to make free. Just freedom to eat good food,
freedom to clothe, freedom to speak my language or freedom for all these to
achieving certain purposes, which help the purpose of the nation. So
this is the question.
Thank you.
Above is a speech given by Rajiv Vora of Gandhi Peace
Foundation on November 22, 2001 during the
'Non-Violence & Social Action' workshop organised by Friends of Tibet (INDIA)
at Sarah, Dharamsala
from November 22-24, 2001.
|