I want to deal with one great evil that is afflicting society today. The capitalist and the zamindar talk of their rights, the labourer on the other hand of his, the prince of his divine right to rule, the ryot of his to resist it. If all simply insist on rights and no duties, there will be utter confusion and chaos.
If instead of insisting on rights everyone does
his duty, there will immediately be the rule of order established among mankind.
There is no such thing as the divine right of kings to rule and the humble duty
of the ryots to pay respectful obedience to their masters. Whilst it is true
that these hereditary inequalities must go as being injurious to the well-being
of the society, the unabashed assertion of rights of the hitherto downtrodden
millions is equally injurious, if not more so to the same well-being. The latter
behaviour is probably calculated to injure the millions rather than the few
claimants of divine rights. They could but die a brave or cowardly death but
those few would not bring in the orderly life blissful contentment. It is,
therefore, necessary to understand the correlation of the rights and duties. I
venture to suggest that rights that do not flow directly from duty well
performed are not worth having. They will be usurpations, sooner discarded the
better. A wretched parent who claims obedience from his children without first
doing his duty by them excites nothing but contempt. It is distortion of
religious precepts for a dissolute husband to expect compliance in every respect
from his dutiful wife. But the children who flout their parent who is ever ready
to do his duty towards them would be considered ungrateful and would harm
themselves more than their parent. The same can be said about husband and wife.
If you apply this simple and universal rule to employers and labourers,
landlords and tenants, the princes and their subjects or the Hindus and the
Muslims, you will find that the happiest relations can be established in all
walks of life without creating disturbances in and dislocation of life and
business which you see in India as in other parts of the world. What I call the
law of Satyagraha is to be deduced from an appreciation of duties and rights
flowing there from.
What is the duty of the Hindu towards his Muslim
neighbor? His duty is to befriend him as man, to share his joys and sorrows and
help him in distress. He will then have the right to expect similar treatment
from his Muslim neighbor and will probably get the expected response. Supposing
the Hindus are in a majority in a village with a sprinkling of Muslim in their
midst, the duty of the majority towards the few Muslims neighbours is increased
manifold, so much so that the few will not feel that their religion makes any
difference in the behaviour of the Hindus towards them. The Hindus will then
earn the right, not before, that the Muslims will be natural friends with them
and in times of danger both the communities will act as one man. But suppose
that the few Muslims do not reciprocate the correct behaviour of the many Hindus
and show fight in every action, it will be a sign of unmanliness. What is then
the duty of the many Hindus? Certainly not to over-power them by the brute
strength of the many; that will be usurpation of an unearned right. Their duty
will be to check their unmanly behaviour as they would that of their blood
brothers. It is necessary for me to dilate further upon the illustration. I will
close it by saying that the application will be exactly the same if the position
is reversed. From what I have said it is easy enough to extend the application
with profit to the whole of the present state which has become baffling because
people do not apply in practice the doctrine of deriving every right from a
prior duty well performed.
The same rule applies to the princes and the ryots.
The formerís duty is to act as true servants of the people. They will rule not
by right granted by some outside authority, never by the right of the sword.
They will rule by right of service, of greater wisdom. They will then have the
right to collect taxes voluntarily paid and expect certain services equally
voluntarily rendered, not for themselves but for the sake of the people under
their care. If they fail to perform this simple and primary duty, the ryots not
only owe no return duty but the duty but the duty devolves on them of resisting
the princely usurpation. It may be otherwise said that the ryots earn the right
of resisting the usurpation or misrule. But the resistance will become a crime
against man in terms of duty if it takes the form of murder, rapine and plunder.
Force that performance of duty naturally generates is the non-violence and
invincible force that Satyagraha brings into being.