Gandhian Pacifism

Gandhian Pacifism

Pacifism is opposition to the practice of war. Many pacifists have a commitment

to non-violence in general in society, making a commitment to achieving one's goals only through

actively non-violent resistance or non-aggressive means. Among these pacifists, there may also be

differing views as to what constitutes violence.

There are several different varieties of pacifism including those who believe killing is

always wrong, those who believe that any kind of violence is wrong, those who argue that

personal violence is always wrong but political violence is sometimes right, and those who justify

some person violence but reject war as always wrong. Mohandas K. Gandhi believed in the

doctrine of Ahimsa, which stands for non-killing. He believes no form of violence is acceptable.

A more peaceful way of life is dreamed about by everyone but it seems almost impossible to

achieve. In his essay, Gandhi says that to reach this level which he considered bringing offense to

no other person, keeping pure thoughts especially with your enemies, and not resenting your

friends or enemies actions, you must continue this practice throughout your life, you cannot

simply achieve it in one day. Gandhi believed in not only spreading this as a practice but lives his

life based on this doctrine. Non-violence looks good on paper, and seems like it would function

well, there would be less blood in our world, and instead more conversations, more peace

between people and nations but would this really hold up completely today?

In the most recent war Afghanistan what would have happened if the president had

decided to practice pacifism and do nothing in return based on our beliefs that war is always

wrong? Was this even an option for our country? Our president as our leader decided to act

accordingly in response to the events going on to protect our nation. Many people think he made

a good decision. What if he was a pacifist? He would not have handled this situation the way

that he did. His beliefs would have, according to Gandhi, been to not act violently and let our

attackers have this burden on their souls. Would this have really worked? Do you think that the

Afghani nation wold have just backed off had we done nothing? There is really no way to tell the

true answer to this but, this would show weakness of out nation to do nothing about the damage

they caused to our country. They may have even decided to continue attacking our country

because we would seem to be weak and an easy target, had we not protected ourselves and taken

a stand.

One writer, Douglas P. Lackey, tries to understand what Gandhi is trying to say about

peace and nonviolence. He states that Gandhi believes "By acting nonviolently, pacifists not only

purify their own souls but also transform the souls of their opponents"(160). This was known as

the "sacredness of life" defense, which basically believed that by sacrificing one life many could be

saved, but Gandhi feels that this still does not save souls. If people are being saved but through

violence then nobody is really saving their souls (160). He believed that the killer would be

perverted by this act, and it would remain on his soul. Lackey examines this in another sense.

"The system of values professed be Gandhi must be kept in mind when considering the frequent

accusations that nonviolence alone does not work"(161). The practice of nonviolence did not

prevent previous wars from occurring. On the other hand, "the soul of the satyagrahi will be

strengthened and purified by nonviolent struggles, and in this purification the Gandhian pacifist

can obtain spiritual victory even in the face of political defeat"(161). So basically speaking we

should let our enemies suffer the ultimate consequence of carrying this burden they brought on

themselves. Would we even consider, today or even before today, giving up all of our freedoms,

rights and privileges to obtain peace with our souls, and let our nations fall to other nations who

don't regard their souls? Based on the facts that none of our leaders have fallen to other nations I

would say that we are not willing to cleanse our souls and let our nation be taken over.

Another issue that Gandhi has to deal with is the "relationship between violence and

coercion"(161). Coercion is" the practice of compelling a person to act by employing threat of

force. Often, it involves the use of actual force in order to make the threat credible, but it is the

threat of further force which brings about the cooperation of the person being

coerced."(Coercion) Due to the fact that coercion is forcing someone to do something they feel

threatened to do, it also constitutes as an act of violence. Gandhi once used "a fast unto

death"(162) to threaten authorities to back off, which eventually they did for fear his death would

bring