Saturday, June 2, 2012

India after Gandhi

Mohandas K. Gandhi is probably the most famous Indian in the world. Born in 1869, he studied law in London from 1888 to 1891. His exposure to English legal tradition and political philosophy stimulated his thinking about topics like trial by jury, writs of habeas corpus, and majority rule. Bringing these ideas back to India, as well as to South Africa, his goal to was ensure that people in other countries would follow the British path to civil liberties.

Ironically, as in many colonial cases, the logic by which the Indians would seek their freedom and independence from the British Empire would be the logic of the British culture - the colonies used England's intellectual heritage against it. The arguments would be drawn from the Magna Carta, the works of John Locke, and the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

One reason that Gandhi became so famous was his non-violent approach. Historian William Duiker writes:

In 1930, Mohandas Gandhi, the sixty-one-year-old leader of the nonviolent movement for Indian independence from British rule, began a march to the sea with seventy-eight followers. Their destination was Dandi, a coastal town some 240 miles away. The group covered about 12 miles a day. As they went on, Gandhi preached his doctrine of nonviolent resistance to British rule in every village he passed through: "Civil disobedience is the inherent right of a citizen. He dare not give it up without ceasing to be a man." By the time he reached Dandi, twenty-four days later, his small group had became an army of thousands. On arrival, Gandhi picked up a pinch of salt from the sand. All along the coast, thousands did likewise, openly breaking British laws that prohibited Indians from making their own salt. The British had long profited from their monopoly on the making and sale of salt, an item much in demand in a tropical country. By their simple acts of disobedience, Gandhi and the Indian people had taken a bold step on their long march to independence.

Gandhi would ultimately be successful, but India's independence would be problematic. Long-suppressed tensions inside Indian society, held in check by English rule, burst into the open. Conflicts between Hindus and Muslims emerged from hiding and remain until the present time. While Gandhi freed his country using nonviolent means, a few individuals in his country have used that freedom to engage in violence. Gandhi wrote that

Victory attained by violence is tantamount to defeat, for it is momentary.

In recent years, the violence between Hindus and Muslims has spilled over into attacks on other religious groups:

In September 2009, the London Times reported on the "worst anti-Christian violence" in India's history. In Orissa state, said local officials, "Hindu fanatics tried to poison water sources at relief camps holding at least 15,000 people displaced by mob violence." Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Christ were beaten as they took four orphans into an adoption center.

There is a sad irony in violence taking place in a nation which owes its freedom and independence to a nonviolent leader: both Mother Teresa and Gandhi won the Nobel Peace Prize - and those freed by Gandhi use violence on those who work for Mother Teresa's organization. The same logic - human dignity, human equality - motivated both Gandhi and Mother Teresa; yet mobs exploit Gandhi's freedom to assault Mother Teresa's workers.

This is not a comment critical of India; it is a comment about human nature. Similar stories can be told about many nations. It is a reminder that we need to be vigilant against our own inclinations and desires. Humans are prone to enjoy the fruits of virtues while violating those same virtues.