Mediaboss Marketing

Most of us make the mistake of associating Mahatma Gandhi's "ahimsa" with just physical non-violence. Yet the father of the nation repeatedly emphasised how important it was to observe non-violence in speech as well. He said this because he knew that like all things fine, democracy too could be easily wrecked by blunt instruments, especially when they were carelessly used.

Way back in 1918, the Mahatma made his point on non-violence very clear. For him Satyagraha must "not be violent in thought, word or deed towards the 'enemy' or among ourselves". If that were not to be the case and "we refuse to hear our opponents...we run the risk of missing the truth". In here lies the link between free speech and democracy, and the connection is an intimate one, logically necessary too. Gandhi said that when we "patiently try to convert our opponents" then, and only then, consensus might be eventually achieved.

In place of a violent display of opinions, Gandhi espoused "sweet persuasion". According to him, "Anger proves our intolerance," adding that the "capacity to bear one another's criticism is a very important quality of public life." Bertrand Russell, another famous pacifist, echoed Gandhi when he said: "If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do."

It does not take long to work this out. The most compelling reason to be violent is because you know you cannot win an argument by using reason. That is when the fur flies and the tongue gets forked and vengeful. If one is truly scoring in a democratic debate, where is the need to be violent, either verbally or physically? In other words, violence comes to life when you know you are slipping up in terms of logic and reason, but your ego just won't let go.

Gandhi knew this frailty very well. This led him to believe that non-violence needs to be more thoroughly grounded in everyday democracy. For him truth and ahimsa were "not just for yogis, but for citizens". Non-violence, therefore, had less to do with religion and everything to do with democracy. This is why Gandhi said that if "we wish to evolve the spirit of democracy...we must be scrupulously exact in dealing with opponents".

We need to correct the popular impression that Gandhi was a fakir who was mugged by politicians. His ultimate goal always was to strengthen the democratic state which is why he refused to give any room to violence, or to its correlate, sectarianism, "in thought, word or deed". According to Gandhi: "The state should look after secular welfare, health, communication, foreign relations, currency, and so on, but not your religion." In fact, on one occasion, he said with some pride that he was often mistaken to be "a Christian in disguise".

Originally posted here:
Badmouthing democracy: The significance of Mahatma Gandhis verbal ahimsa in our cuss-heavy republic