Relevance of Gandhi's teleological view of non-violence
How true Gandhi was, is proved today when we see both the USA as well as the Taliban living in fear, having less liberty, their equality and fraternity shattered. Today every coloured and turbaned American is suspect in the eyes of his fellow white citizen. The Afghans are likewise a house divided, with brother made to fight brother. If only the West and Islam had learnt to live according to the essential nature of man, that is, non-violently, they (and the world) today would not be suffering the consequences of their violent life styles.

Violent means can never establish Truth or Justice

Violence mainly decides whose will shall prevail. It enables the strong to rule over the weak. It enabled USA to prevail over Iraq. It enables Israel to dominate the Palestinians. But there is nothing inherent in superior military or economic power that ensures justice is being done. While saying that justice does require power to enforce itself, to argue that those who wield superior power are ipso facto doing justice would not be acceptable. This is what Gandhi implied when he said even if 99 out of 100 people do not agree with me, I can only do justice by being true to myself, to my conscience, to the God (or moral imperative) within me.
Justice and the search for truth, according to Gandhi, require, first and foremost, that we respect those who differ from us and are ever ready to dialogue with them. We must endeavor to change the adversary's mind and heart as much as be ready to change our own set opinions when confronted with reasonable dissent/disagreement. How can we ever hope to discover the truth if we opt to destroy those who dissent or differ from us.

Gandhi argued that in war even the good points the opponent is making are overlooked, whereas in non-violent resistance it is possible for each side to see and appreciate whatever justice there may be in the other side. Moreover Gandhi believed that non-violent techniques give rise to less scope for falsehood, deception and treachery and destruction which are common characteristics of violent conflicts and struggles

Non-Violence means looking at the evil within
Turning to apply Gandhi's doctrine to the America versus Taliban conflict, the question that can legitimately be raised is, has the USA cared to look at the evil within? If it does it may find that it has not always done justice to the non-white world. It has been unduly partial towards Israel's violence and forcible occupation of Arab territory. It has umpteen times adopted double standards. To give just one example: it adopted one standard for Iraq when it invaded Kuwait and another whenever Israel committed aggression. Then it has never hesitated to adopt the policy of carrot and stick to pursue its own (or western world's) national interests. USA's foreign policy tilt towards Pakistan for purely strategic reasons viz. promoting American national or security interests, write from the 1950s when it used Pakistan to fight its cold war adversary the USSR, till today when it seeks to make Pakistan the frontline state for fighting Taliban, is a good example of the exercise of what analysts call Reward Power the power to achieve one's goals through use of the power to offer rewards, like giving military and economic aid, lifting sanctions, etc. Because of its policy of rule by military and reward power, because of its policy of identifying American global domination with justice, the USA has only produced a large number of marginal men.
It is impossible for the westerners who till yesterday lived comfortable and secure lives, fighting wars in remote lands with remotely controlled weapons, to easily understand the power of the marginal man. The marginal man is the man in Palestine, in Syria, in Iraq, who fights by resorting to terrorism because he has nothing to lose except his life since the powerful West has already denied him his rights and history, and, deprived him of his family, home and land. The power the marginal man exercises is a power that the West finds difficult to rationally apprehend. It is the power of a man who perceives himself as a holy warrior, who will not shirk from committing suicide in order to hit his enemy or perceived oppressor.

If only the USA would look within, it would find that the deplorable terrorist attack on the WTC's twin towers on that fateful Tuesday, the 11th of September 2001 was the marginal man's way of conveying a message to the powerful West. A message which simply says, "You are the enemy, the real terrorist who has stripped us of our land and rights and while doing this you openly flaunt your military power, wealth and privileges.

Non-Violence means under-standing the adversary's mind

If the USA wants abiding justice and peace, it must not only give precedence to dialogue over violence, it must not only look within (to examine if there is evil or injustice lurking within itself), but it must also try and understand the adversary's (in this case Taliban and marginal man's) mind.
Once Gandhi was asked how he would tackle a robber who had entered his house adopting non-violent means. Gandhi's reply was I have three options. I can violently bash him up. Secondly, if I am a coward, I can watch him steal and go away. But, thirdly, said Gandhi, if I am truly non-violent I would dialogue with him and try to find out why he has come to steal, and, maybe I would find that it is because he is starving. In that case, I would realize that it is not he who is the real thief. The real thief is myself who has held on to more than what I really need.

Now has the USA tried to understand the mind of the marginal man and the Taliban (Islamic fundamentalist). Justice can be done to the marginal man by removing his sense of unjust deprivation. However, justice can be done to the Islamic fundamentalist only by exposing how he is distorting the true message of Islam for evil and political purposes. Islam prescribes a holy war or jihad only against oppressors of the practitioners of the faith; it prescribes respect for other faiths. Islam also lays great stress on compassion and wisdom. Writing in The Times of India of 17th October 2001, Asghar Ali Engineer wonders why Islam has not yet produced a Mahatma Gandhi. It is time wiser men tackled Islamic fundamentalism by adopting a three pronged strategy. Firstly, ask the powerful West to look within and find out to what extent Islamic militancy and fundamentalism is a response to Western unjust domination and its playing the role of a partial global policeman. Secondly, encourage the correct interpretation of the message of Islam, whose strong points are peace, compassion and justice as much as war against oppression. Thirdly, strengthen a truly global regime of Human Rights, which cut across nationalities, religions, and races.
Why good & wise men should deem Ahimsa as superior to Himsa

The ethical-religious reason simply says we should not practice violence against fellow humans because "they are as we are". What Gandhi meant by this was that the same God or spark of divinity (innate goodness, Kant's moral imperative) resides in all human beings, hence the possibility of reform cannot be denied even in the case of the meanest of creatures. On the practical plane, Gandhi's argument is equally simple and clear. What is got by force can only be retained by force. Those who believe in violence can rule only so long as they can retain their superior force. Once their power weakens the opponent, waiting to seek revenge again raises his head. Violence only makes the adversary or vested interest go underground or pretend submission and bide time for revenge. If men are wise and want to seek permanent freedom from this vicious cycle of violence, revenge and counter revenge, than they must work to change hearts (their own as well as of the adversary). In short arrive at a new moral consensus.
Applying Gandhi's doctrine of ahimsa to the America-Taliban conflict, it can legitimately be argued that if the Taliban surrenders to superior force, remaining unconvinced that justice has been done, the submission at best will be temporary. The enemy will lie low, waiting for an opportunity to strike back when the perceived enemy's forces weaken or when he lowers his guard. The lesson to be learnt from Gandhi's philosophy is that permanent change can only be based on a non-violent change of hearts. Abiding peace will emerge only when both parties to the conflict arrive at a new moral consensus. What we need is moral armament, not weapons armament.

In Gandhi's scattered writings we also come across other implications of practicing non-violence, which contemporary men and nations need to note and practice. For Gandhi ahimsa meant avoiding anger, being calm and content, not being jealousy, not being greedy (wanting or holding on to more than what we need). Today the USA, Isreal, Taliban, the whole world need to be reminded of these simple truths. As Lalita Panicker writing the middle in The Times of India of 25-10-01, p.12 observes Zeevi "had it coming". Zeevi, according to Panicker used "routinely to refer to Palestinians as lice and sub-humans. Regrettable though the killing is, it is precisely this attitude, the refusal to recognize the valid human rights of different people that has created a situation in which most Israelis live in a constant stage of siege". Translating Gandhi's message that anger and hatred are another face of violence into practice, it means wise global leadership is expected to abjure anger, malice, hatred and endeavor to replace the ancient Semitic principle of eye for eye and tooth for tooth, by a mature, calm, composed and honest diplomacy, in which, first each side endeavors to look within to detect and eradicate the evil within itself; then each side seeks to understand the other and finally both sides endeavor to arrive at a new moral consensus which would remove the conflict permanently because it would have removed the root causes of the conflict.
The collateral damage done by violence

The adoption of violence (war) also does collateral damage to society. In the case of the UAS-Taliban conflict, we find that a significant casualty of the conflict has been freedom, especially of the media, print and electronic. In October 2001, the National Security Advisor, Condoleeza Rice had a conference with media managers who reportedly agreed to her suggestion that any future taped statements from Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaida group be abridged and any potentially inflammatory language be removed. The White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, made a similar veiled threat of censorship when he said that American media "need to watch what they say". The CNN responded by issuing an official statement declaring that in deciding what went on the air it would consider guidance from appropriate authorities. Here is a veiled censorship in the country that cherishes its history of freedom. It is inappropriate for the government in a truly free country to subtly dictate to the media how to report the news. Freedom of expression in USA has indeed become the first casualty of war. Secondly, America's multi-culturalism and open society have equally come under threat. Turbaned Sikhs, Asians in general, Muslims in particular who till recently were considered fellow Americans contributing to USA's prosperity, overnight turned suspect in the eyes of many common and less informed Americans. The funda-mental rights to security of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness which Americans constitutionally cherished as their most prized possession will never be the same again after the declared war on Laden's Al-Qaida. In the aftermath of the war, most Americans live in fear of lurking terrorism in the form of mail containing Anthrax, travel by air has been drastically reduced, tourism affected. These collateral damages are cited to show that war is a very costly way of settling disputes and achieving justice. Precedence to dialogue, under-standing the justice in the demands of the adversary, understanding the reasons why an adversary burning with hatred for Americans has arisen etc., these are the key issues that need to be addressed. Merely winning a war with a primitive enemy is not the ideal solution to solving the complex problem of violence and terrorism globally. In short, in our turbulent times we need to go back to Gandhi and rethink the wisdom contained in his doctrine of Ahimsa.

Prof. Adi H. Doctor is Visiting Professor of Political Science, University of Goa, Goa.