Reader : Is there any historical evidence as to the success of what you have called soul-force or truth-force? No instance seems to have happened of any nation having risen through soul-foree. I still think that the evil-doers will not cease doing evil without physical punishment.
Editor : The poet Tulsidas has said: "Of religion, pity, or love, is the
root, as egotism of the body. Therefore, we should not abandon pity so
long as we are alive." This appears to me to be a scientific truth. I
believe in it as much as I believe in two and two being four. The force
of love is the same as the force of the soul or truth. We have evidence
of its working at every step. The universe would disappear without the
existence of that force. But you ask for historical evidence. It is,
therefore, necessary to know what history means. The Gujarati equivalent
means: "It so happened." If that is the meaning of history, it is
possible to give copious evidence. But, if it means the doings of kings
and emperors, there can be no evidence of soul-force or passive
resistance in such history, You cannot expect silver ore in a tin mine.
History, as we know it, is a record of the wars of the world, and so
there is a proverb among Englishmen that a nation which has no history,
that is, no wars, is a happy nation. How kings played, how they became
enemies of one another, how they murdered one another, is found
accurately recorded in history, and if this were all that had happened
in the world, it would have been ended long ago. If the story of the
universe had commenced with wars, not a man would have been found alive
today. Those people who have been warned against have disappeared as,
for instance, the natives of Australia of whom hardly a man was left
alive by the intruders. Mark, please, that these natives did not use
soul-force in self-defence, and it does not require much foresight to
know that the Australians will share the same fate as their victims.
"Those that take the sword shall perish by the sword." With us the
proverb is that professional swimmers will find a watery grave.
The fact that there are so many men still alive in the world shows that
it is based not on the force of arms but on the force of truth or love.
Therefore, the greatest and most unimpeachable evidence of the success
of this force is to be found in the fact that, in spite of the wars of
the world, it still lives on.
Thousands, indeed tens of thousands, depend for their existence on a
very active working of this force. Little quarrels of millions of
families in their daily lives disappear before the exercise of this
force. Hundreds of nations live in peace. History does not and cannot
take note of this fact. History is really a record of every interruption
of the even working of the force of love or of the soul. Two brothers
quarrel; one of them repents and reawakens the love that was lying
dormant in him; the two again begin to live in peace; nobody takes note
of this. But if the two brothers, through the intervention of solicitors
or some other reason take up arms or go to law—which is another form of
the exhibition of brute force,— their doings would be immediately
noticed in the press, they would be the talk of their neighbours and
would probably go down to history. And what is true of families and
communities is true of nations. There is no reason to believe that there
is one law for families and another for nations. History, then, is a
record of an interruption of the course of nature. Soul-force, being
natural, is not noted in history.
Reader : According to what you say, it is plain that instances of this
kind of passive resistance are not to be found in history. It is
necessary to understand passive resistance more fully. It will be
better, therefore, if you enlarge upon it.
Editor : Passive resistance is a method of securing rights by personal
suffering; it is the reverse of resistance by arms. When I refuse to do
a thing that is repugnant to my conscience, I use soul-force. For
instance, the Government of the day has passed a law which is applicable
to me. I do not like it. If by using violence I force the Government to
repeal the law, I am employing what may be termed body-force. If I do
not obey the law and accept the penalty for its breach, I use
soul-force. It involves sacrifice of self.
Everybody admits that sacrifice of self is infinitely superior to
sacrifice of others. Moreover, if this kind of force is used in a cause
that is unjust, only the person using it suffers. He does not make
others suffer for his mistakes. Men have before now done many things
which were subsequently found to have been wrong. No man can claim that
he is absolutely in the right or that a particular thing is wrong
because he thinks so, but it is wrong for him so long as that is his
deliberate judgment. It is therefore meet that he should not do that
which he knows to be wrong, and suffer the consequence whatever it may
be. This is the key to the use of soul-force.
Reader : You would then disregard laws—this is rank disloyalty We have
always been considered a law- abiding nation. You seem to be going even
beyond the extremists. They say that we must obey the laws that have
been passed, but that if the laws be bad, we must drive out the
law-givers even by force.
Editor : Whether I go
beyond them or whether I
do, not is a matter of no consequence to either of us. We simply want to
find out what is right and to act accordingly. The real meaning of the
statement that we are a law-abiding nation is that we are passive
resisters. When we do not like certain laws, we do not break the heads
of law-givers but we suffer and do not submit to the laws. That we
should obey laws whether good or bad is a newfangled nation. There was
no such thing in former days. The people disregarded those laws they did
not like and suffered the penalties for their breach. It is contrary to
our manhood if we obey laws repugnant to our conscience. Such teaching
is opposed to religion and means slavery. If the Government were to ask
us to go about without any clothing, should we do so? If I were a
passive resister, I would say to them that I would have nothing to do
with their law. But we have so forgotten ourselves and become so
compliant that we do not mind any degrading law.
A man who has realized his manhood, who fears only God, will fear no one
else. Man-made laws are not necessarily binding on him. Even the
Government does not expect any such thing from us. They do not say: "You
must do such and such a thing," but they say: "If you do not do it, we
will punish you." We are sunk so low that we fancy that it is our duty
and our religion to do what the law lays down. If man will only realize
that it is unmanly to obey laws that are unjust, no man's tyranny will
enslave him. This is the key to self- rule or home-rule.
It is a superstition and ungodly thing to believe that an act of a
majority binds a minority. Many examples can be given in which acts of
majorities will be found to have been wrong and those of minorities to
have been right. All reforms owe their origin to the initiation of
minorities in opposition to majorities. If among a band of robbers
knowledge of robbing is obligatory, is a pious man to accept the
obligation? So long as the superstition that men should obey unjust laws
exists, so long will their slavery exist. And a passive resister alone
can remove such a superstition.
To use brute force, to use gunpowder, is contrary to passive resistance,
for it means that we want our opponent to do by force that which we
desire but he does not. And if such a use of force is justifiable,
surely he is entitled to do likewise by us. And so we should never come
to an agreement. We may simply fancy, like the blind horse moving in a
circle round a mill, that we are making progress. Those who believe that
they are not bound to obey laws which are repugnant to their conscience
have only the remedy of passive resistance open to them. Any other must
lead to disaster.
Reader : From what you say I deduce that passive resistance is a
splendid weapon of the weak, but that when they are strong they may take
Editor : This is gross ignorance. Passive resistance, that is,
soul-force, is matchless. It is superior to the force of arms. How,
then, can it be considered only a weapon of the weak? Physical-force men
are strangers to the courage that is requisite in a passive resister. Do
you believe that a coward can ever disobey a law that he dislikes?
Extremists are considered to be advocates of brute force. Why do they,
then, talk about obeying laws? I do not blame them. They can say nothing
else. When they succeed in driving out the English and they themselves
become governors, they will want you and me to obey their laws. And that
is a fitting thing for their constitution. But a passive resister will
say he will not obey a law that is against his conscience, even though
he may be blown to pieces at the mouth of cannon.
What do you think? Wherein is courage required— in blowing others to
pieces from behind a cannon, or with a smiling face to approach a cannon
and be blown to pieces? Who is the true warrior — he who keeps death
always as a bosom-friend, or he who controls the death of others?
Believe me that a man devoid of courage and manhood can never be a
This however, I will admit: that even a man weak in body is capable of
offering this resistance. One man can offer it just as well as millions.
Both men and women can indulge in it. It does not require the training
of an army; it needs no jiu-jitsu. Control over the mind is alone
necessary, and when that is attained, man is free like the king of the
forest and his very glance withers the enemy.
Passive resistance is an all-sided sword, it can be used anyhow; it
blesses him who uses it and him against whom it is used. Without drawing
a drop of blood it produces far-reaching results. It never rusts and
cannot be stolen. Competition between passive resisters does not
exhaust. The sword of passive resistance does not require a scabbard. It
is strange indeed that you should consider such a weapon to be a weapon
merely of the weak.
Reader : You have said that passive resistance is a speciality of India.
Have cannons never been used in India?
Editor : Evidently, in your opinion, India means its few princes. To me
it means its teeming millions on whom depends the existence of its
princes and our own.
Kings will always use their kingly weapons. To use force is bred in
them. They want to command, but those who have to obey commands do not
want guns: and these are in a majority throughout the world. They have
to learn either body-force or soul-force. Where they learn the former,
both the rulers and the ruled become like so many madmen; but but where
they learn soul force, the commands of the rulers do not go beyond the
point of their swords, for true men disregard unjust commands. Peasants
have never been subdued by the sword, and never will be. They do not
know the use of the sword, and they are not frightened by the use of it
by others. That nation is great which rests its head upon death as its
pillow. Those who defy death are free from all fear. For those who are
labouring under the delusive charms of brute-force, this picture is not
overdrawn. The fact is that, in India, the nation at large has generally
used passive resistance in all departments of life. We cease to
co-operate with our rulers when they displease us. This is passive
I remember an instance when, in a small principality, the villagers were
offended by some command issued by the prince. The former immediately,
began vacating the village. The prince became nervous, apologized to his
subjects and withdrew his command. Many such instances can be found in
India. Real Home Rule is possible only where passive resistance is the
guiding force of the people. Any other rule is foreign rule.
Reader : Then you will say that it is not at all necessary for us to
train the body?
Editor : I will certainly not say any such thing. It is difficult
to become a passive resister unless the body is trained. As a rule, the
mind, residing in a body that has become weakened by pampering, is also
weak, and where there is no strength of mind there can be no strength of
soul. We shall have to improve our physique by getting rid of infant
marriages and luxurious living. If I were to ask a man with a shattered
body to face a cannon's mouth I should make a laughing-stock of myself.
Reader : From what you say, then, it would appear that it is not a small
thing to become a passive resister, and, if that is so, I should like
you to explain how a man may become one.
Editor : To become a passive resister is easy enough but it is also
equally difficult. I have known a lad of fourteen years become a passive
resister; I have known also sick people do likewise; and I have also
known physically strong and otherwise happy people unable to take up
passive resistance. After a great deal of experience it seems, to me
that those who want to become passive resisters for the service of the
country have to observe perfect chastity, adopt poverty, follow truth,
and cultivate fearlessness.
Chastity is one of the greatest disciplines without which the mind
cannot attain requisite firmness. A man who is unchaste loses stamina,
becomes emasculated and cowardly. He whose mind is given over to animal
passions is not capable of any great effort. This can be proved by
innumerable instances. What, then, is a married person to do is the
question that arises naturally; and yet it need not. When a husband and
wife gratify the passions, it is no less an animal indulgence on that
account. Such an indulgence, except for perpetuating the race, is
strictly prohibited. But a passive resister has to avoid even that very
limited indulgence because he can have no desire for progeny. A married
man, therefore, can observe perfect chastity. This subject is not
capable of being created at greater length. Several questions arise: How
is one to carry one's wife with one, what are her rights, and other
similar questions. Yet those who wish to take part in a great work are
bound to solve these puzzles.
Just as there is necessity for chastity, so is there for poverty.
Pecuniary ambition and passive resistance cannot well go together. Those
who have money are not expected to throw it away, but they are expected
to be indifferent about it. They must be prepared to lose every penny
rather than give up passive resistance.
Passive resistance has been described in the course of our discussion as
truth-force. Truth, therefore, has necessarily to be followed and that
at any cost. In this connection, academic questions such as whether a
man may not lie in order to save a life, etc., arise, but these
questions occur only to those who wish to justify lying. Those who want
to follow truth every time are not placed in such a quandary; and if
they are, they are still saved from a false position.
Passive resistance cannot proceed a step without fearlessness. Those
alone can follow the path of passive resistance who are free from fear,
whether as to their possessions, false honour, their relatives, the
government, bodily injuries or death.
These observances are not to be abandoned in the belief that they are
difficult. Nature has implanted in the human breast ability to cope with
any difficulty or suffering that may come to man unprovoked. These
qualities are worth having, even for those who do not wish to serve the
country. Let there be no mistake, as those who want to train themselves
in the use of arms are also obliged to have these qualities more or
less. Everybody does not become a warrior for the wish. A would-be
warrior will have to observe chastity and to be satisfied with poverty
as his lot. A warrior without fearlessness cannot be conceived of. It
may be thought that he would not need to be exactly truthful, but that
quality follow real fearlessness. When a man abandons truth, he does so
owing to fear in some shape or form The above four attributes, then,
need not frighten anyone. It may be as well here to note that a
physical- force man has to have many other useless qualities which a
passive resister never needs. And you will find that whatever extra
effort a swordsman needs is due to lack of fearlessness. If he is an
embodiment of the latter, the sword will drop from his hand that very
moment. He does not need its support. One who is free from hatred
requires no sword. A man with a stick suddenly came face to face with a
lion and instinctively raised his weapon in self-defence. The man saw
that he had only prated about fearlessness when there was none in him.
That moment he dropped the stick and found himself free from all fear.