A Comparison between two Styles of Political Resistance, Imam Khomeini & Gandhi

No to Violence; Yes to Bravery

One way to know great political figures is to compare their political life approach and especially their campaign style against enemies, their efforts for political renovation of their country, the time and the circumstances they emerged, and also whom, why and how they fought. Two examples of these great figures are Imam Khomeini and Gandhi. In spite of some major differences between these two brilliant characters, there are many similarities between their political methods and their services for the political renovation of Iran and India.
Imam Khomeini used two principles of “Expectation” and “Martyrdom”, parts of Shiite tradition, to mobilize and unite people against despotism and foreign colonization. Gandhi too used Indian traditions to fight British colonization and derived the principle of “ahimsa” or “nonviolence” from the same tradition and reinterpreted it. To Gandhi “nonviolence” and “the power of reality” are so closely related that practically it is impossible to separate and segregate them. They are two sides of a coin. Anyhow, he thinks nonviolence is a means and reality an end. He discovered nonviolence in his pursue of reality. Gandhi thought there is no way to find reality but nonviolence. Put differently, Gandhi believed the goal of nonviolence is the settlement of the power of reality against injustice and is in itself a way for explicit disobedience of the laws Gandhi and his followers considered them unfair.

This disassociation or civil opposition is not fulfilled through face to face confrontation, organizing oppositions and emergence of a crack between the opponents and victory of one over another, but from Gandhi’s point of view it should be settled on compromise, concord and lack of hatred of the enemy and even liking him. This approach arises from Indian traditional beliefs about management of dispute in politics and law which is itself based on social arbitration and compromise. In Imam Khomeini’s viewpoint too “expectation” and “martyrdom” or “Karbala Rise” is two important tactics for confrontation against aggression and despotism in any age and circumstances. Expectation creates hope and movement in a Muslim fighter and martyrdom makes him ready for dedication and self-sacrifice and also makes death inferior in his eyes. The tactics Imam had in mind (expectation and martyrdom) also arise from religion and tradition and is related to the Muslims’ religious beliefs about the quality of confrontation with opponents, despotism and injustice. The main goal of Imam Khomeini and Gandhi in this method of campaign against aggressors is to erase the effects of fear and weakness in their followers’ minds and to restore their bravery and courage. This is because colonial policies in India and Iran destroyed the sense of self-confidence and cultural self-esteem among Iranians and Indians and degraded them to weak, wretch, imitator and coward people. So both Imam Khomeini and Gandhi perceived that reviving courage in their people is depended to their mobilization and unity against aggressors. 

The perception of these two leaders from courage was somehow different, although finally get closer due to some reasons, which will be explained soon. Gandhi believed the courage, which needs certain type of sacrifice and self control, is rooted in nonviolence. The apex of courage and climax of bravery is shown in nonviolence, and on the other hand despotism and violence is a proved sign of fear. In Gandhi’s view nonviolence is an inner struggle not a fear. Courage and bravery is hidden in inner and spiritual power, not in material and physical power. Bravery means to obtain one’s rights through enduring personal suffering which is in opposition with confrontation and resistance through using guns. Bravery means mere self-control and self-suffering; it is to appeal to power of reality, not to physical one; it is volitional resistance of a person against the will of aggressors, not disability and defeat of one’s will or surrender to destiny; it is passive resistance and disassociation without committing retaliatory measures and killing oneself and others. Gandhi explains his nonviolence method as to avoid doing what one’s conscience does not accept, and to use the spiritual power of God. He then makes this point more clear: “for example suppose the present government has enacted a law which involves me too, but I dislike it. If I make the government to cancel the law, I should accept the consequences of disobedience. In here I have used my spiritual power including my own sacrifice.” Thus in Gandhi’s point of view, if one who is weak in apparent and physical potentialities, surrender to the enemy or flee, it is a sign of cowardliness; If he uses his might to strike a blow to his opponents and loose his life in this way, it is considered just courage and bravery not nonviolence, but if he considers flee a shame and resist without beating the enemy and die in this way, it is the righteous meaning of resistance accompanied with nonviolence, courage and bravery. Imam Khomeini emphasized on courage and bravery as much as Gandhi or even more. He also believed, as Gandhi did, that enduring pain and suffering bestows a man a spiritual power and as a result, courage. Imam also thought one who fears from God will not be feared by no one and nothing. He, as Gandhi, believed one, who shows weakness in front of enemy and runs away or submits, is a coward and chicken-hearted. Yet Imam, unlike Gandhi, limited bravery and courage in nonviolence, but in situation of compulsion and urgency it is permitted to appeal to violence, provided that it is performed on celestial will and aim and for fulfillment of duty, not obedience of worldly intentions. In other word, to defend oneself against enemy is logical and wise in Imam’s view. The pure will and intention in Imams thoughts, separates this war from mere fighting or naked war and transform it into “Jihad” or “Holy War”.
 
Hereby Imam Khomeini’s notion of courage and bravery is neither completely compatible with western conception (considering courage and bravery just boasting and apparent physical victory over enemy, without considering the intention, incentives, self-suffering, self-control and fear of God), nor to Gandhi’s, but is a combination of these two approaches and is not definitely none of them. Although Imam accepted the Gandhi’s basic idea saying that one should be patience and self-controlled against enemy, but believed any measure for self-control should not violate the limits of wisdom and logic. In any circumstances, liking aggressors and lack of hatred against them and forgiving them is absolutely naivety.  This may have uncompensated damages and consequences. Therefore, quarrelsome and decisiveness, uncompromising and even resort to the use of force is permitted, logical and wise. In brief, neither the courage derived from mere nonviolence is accepted nor the one derived from mere violence, but a courage is accepted which is a combination of these two, though in normal situations nonviolence is preferred to violence. In other words nonviolence is the postulate and violence the corollary and exception. 
The practical sketch of Imam in confronting the aggressors confirms this. His main approach in fighting against Shah’s regime was a peaceful method, protest and passive resistance rather than appeal to violence and use of guns, as Gandhi did. Imam just encouraged people for peaceful demonstration and rally, and at most asked them to disobey government‘s laws, e.g. asked soldiers to leave the garrisons and people not to pay tax to the government. The goal of all these were to waken up the sense of identity in Iranians and restore their courage and bravery. However, when needed, Imam did not deny appeal to military power and violent confrontation with the regime. Imam continued this approach after the victory of the revolution too. That is, nonviolence was a postulate but in response to internal and external conspiracies, as in Kurdistan crisis or the accident in town of Amol and particularly Iraq’s imposed war against Iran, Imam was obliged to order defensive counteraction be adopted by defenders.

In spite of the differences between Imam’s and Gandhi’s perception about courage, what approximates Gandhi to Imam in this case, is the point that Gandhi also in some circumstances has allowed the use of violence. One of these cases is called “dastardliness”. He says: “I consider violence a thousand times better than making a nation and a race, dastard.” Another case is called “chicken-heartedness”. He says: “I believe when there is just one choice between cowardliness and violence, for sure I would advice violence and force." Just for the same reason when his senior son asked him "if I were present in 1908 (when Gandhi was attacked and invaded for his life) what was my duty? Should I ran away and let you die or I should defend you through my physical power as far as I could?” Gandhi answered: "‘in such a case your duty is to defend me, even if this necessitates the use of force and violence’”. It was just with the same approach that he participated in Boer war and Rolow Revolt and World War I and endorsed learning the use of guns by those who believed in violent methods.  Gandhi even advised Indians: “It is better to use guns in defending their honor and respect rather than remain abject and weak and also not being a witness in their own desecration and dishonor”. When he heard of a village near Betia whose people left there and flew away from the invasion of police, who looted their homes and annoyed their women, with the excuse of following the principle of nonviolence, he lowered his head in shame and reminded them that this is not what he meant by nonviolence. He then said I expected them to defend from those under their protection in the most powerful way and it was natural and courageous if they defended their properties, honor and religion. And of course it was more courageous and virtuous to defend aggressors without the intention of harming them. These considerations clarify that the nonviolence method of Gandhi, instead of eliminating violence, redirects it. Otherwise stated, he substitute “physical violence” with “spiritual one” and although spiritual violence is offensive just like physical one but it is silent.

Thus, in spite of some differences in perceptions of these two leaders about courage and bravery, totally the style of both against aggression is too close and similar. Both leaders prefer political and peaceful approach to military and violent one. Both invited people to take part in demonstrations, rallies and objections, using their traditional beliefs and cultural and traditional faith. Both believed in mobilization of people and their unity against enemy through asking their disobedience, passive resistance, disassociation and urban defiance. They both asked for public close down. Both were severely against betrayal and cowardliness and deprecated fleeing from confrontation with dangers and disasters with the excuse of defending dear ones. Both welcomed death and asked their followers to be so. But Imam, unlike Gandhi, not only did not considered one’s right to defend and counteract, in urgency and with pure and good intention, a sign of cowardliness but believed it is the mere courage and bravery and a logical and wise action.

Mohammad Abedi Ardakani, Yazd University, Faculty Member
Translated by: Asghar Abutorbi

Source: Mehrnameh Monthly, No. 3