BETTIAH,
June 9, 1917

MY DEAR ESTHER,

As you will have seen from the papers sent to you, I have been to Ranchi, from which place I returned only yesterday to find your letters.

Yours is a difficult question to answer. The total effect of European activity has not been for the good of India. The general body of Europeans who have come to India have succumbed to the vices of the East instead of imposing their own virtues on the East. It could not well be otherwise. Religion has not made a lasting impression on them, as we see demonstrated even by the present war. My theory is that modern civilization is decidedly anti-Christian. And what Europeans have brought to India is that civilization, not the life of Jesus. You and a handful of others are striving to represent that life. It is bound to leave its mark upon the soil. But it must take time. “The mills of God grind slowly.” You and people like you are not affected by the evil that stares you in the face. You get behind it, discover the good lying underneath and add it to your own stock, thus producing a perfect blend. What I want is a reciprocity of that method. And so I welcomed your visit to the Ashram, as I welcome that of many European friends who are true to their best traditions and are broadminded enough to take in the best that this land has to give. Have I made myself clear? Please discuss this further and freely with me.

I am likely to serve on the Committee the Government are about to appoint. I am presently framing a general note¹ which will give you the details of the visit to Ranchi. It was a good thing I went.

Please don’t think that I am killing myself with work.

With love from us all,

Yours,
BAPU

My Dear Child, pp. 11-3

MOTHARI,
June 30, 1917

MY DEAR ESTHER,

I have your two letters before me. I returned from Ahmedabad on the 28th. I had a nice time there.

The city life I have always found to be chilling; the village life, free, invigorating and godly.

‘Why has God given us so many gifts, powers, skill to invent if we are not to use them?’ You have asked a question which I have asked myself and thousands are always asking. My humble opinion is that God has placed temptations in our way the strength of which is the same as that of the possibilities of rise in moral grandeur. We may use our inventive faculty either for inward growth or for outward indulgence. I may devote my talents for utilizing the falls from the Himalayas; I only increase mankind’s facilities for indulgence. I may use my talents for discovering laws which govern the falls from the Himalayas within me; I serve myself and mankind by adding to the permanent happiness. You will make up for yourself countless illustrations showing that all our talents are to be utilized only for inward growth which can come from self-restraint alone.

Do please remember me to Mr. Bittmann² and thank him on my behalf for permitting you to come to the Ashram whenever you are free.

Your experience of the young man is nothing extraordinary. Pray do not be impatient to reform men and women whom you meet. The first and the last thing we have to attend to reform ourselves. In trying to reform, we seem to be judging. These young men often become worse for our handling. The safest course is to let such men leave us when they are found wanting. I have not sufficiently expressed myself. But you will understand. If not, please ask.

Yours,

BAPU

My Dear Child, pp. 14-5

[September 2, 1917]³

BHAISHRI SHANKARLAL,

You want to know my ideas about satyagraha. Here they are in brief:

The English phrase “passive resistance” does not suggest the power I wish to write about; “satyagraha” is the right word. Satyagraha is soul-force, as opposed to armed strength. Since it is essentially an ethical weapon, only men inclined to the ethical way of life can use it wisely. Prahlad, Mirabai, and others were satyagrahis. At the time of the Morocco fighting, the Arabs were under fire from French guns. The Arabs were fighting, as they believed, solely for their religion. Reckless of their lives, they advanced running towards the French guns with cries of “Ya Allah”⁴. Here, there was no scope at all for fighting back to kill. The French gunners refused to fire on these Arabs and, throwing up their caps, ran to embrace these brave Arabs with shouts of joy. This is an example of satyagraha and the success it can achieve. The Arabs were not satyagrahis by deliberate choice. They got ready to face death under pressure of a strong impulse, and had no love in their hearts. A satyagrahi bears no ill-will, does not lay down his life in anger, but refuses rather to submit to his “enemy” or oppressor because he has the strength himself to suffer. He should, therefore, have a courageous spirit and a forgiving and compassionate nature. Imam Hassan⁵ and Hussain⁶ were merely two boys. They felt that an injustice had been done to them. When called upon to surrender, they refused. They knew at the time that this would mean death for them. If, however, they were to submit to injustice, they would disgrace their manhood and betray their religion. In these circumstances, they yielded to the embrace of death. The heads of these fine young men rolled on the battlefield. In my view, Islam did not attain its greatness by the power of the sword but entirely through the self-immolation of its fakirs. It is soldierlike to allow oneself to be cut down by a sword, not to use the sword on another. When he comes to realize that he is guilty of murder, the killer, if he has been in the wrong, will feel sorry forever afterwards. The victim, however, will have gained nothing but victory even if he had acted wrongly in courting death. Satyagraha is the way of non-violence. It is, therefore, justified, indeed it is the right course, at all times and all places. The power of arms is violence and condemned as such in all religions. Even those who advocate the use of arms put various limits on it. There are no limits on satyagraha, or rather, none except those placed by the satyagrahi’s capacity for tapascharya, for voluntary suffering.

Obviously, it is irrelevant to raise issues about the legality of such satyagraha. It is for the satyagrahi to decide. Observers may judge satyagraha after the event. The world’s displeasure will not deter a satyagrahi. Whether or not satyagraha should be started is not decided by any mathematical rule. A man who believes that satyagraha may be started only after weighing the chances of defeat and victory and assuring oneself of the certainty of victory, may be a shrewd enough politician or an intelligent man, but he is no satyagrahi. A satyagrahi acts spontaneously.

Satyagraha and arms have both been in use from time immemorial. We find them praised in the extant scriptures. They are the expressions, one of the daivi sampad⁷ and the other of the asuri sampad. We believe that in former times in India the daivi sampad was much the stronger of the two. Even today that is the ideal we cherish. Europe provides the most striking example of the predominance of the asuri sampad.

Both these forms of strength are preferable to weakness, to what we know by the rather plain but much apter word ‘cowardice’. Without either, swaraj or genuine popular awakening is impossible. Swaraj achieved otherwise than through resort to one or the other will not be true swaraj. Such swaraj can have no effect on the people. Popular awakening cannot be brought about without strength, without manliness. Let the leaders say what they like and the Government strive its utmost, unless they and we, all of us, strengthen the forces of satyagraha, the methods of violence are bound automatically to gain ascendancy. They are like weeds which grow wild in any soil. The crop of satyagraha requires willingness to exert oneself or a venturesome spirit by way of manure. Just as, moreover, the seedlings are likely to be lost among the weeds if the latter are not plucked out, so also will weeds of violence keep growing unless we keep the land free of them by tapascharya and, with compassion, pluck out those which have already grown. We can, with the help of satyagraha, win over those young men who have been driven to desperation and anger by what they think to be the tyranny of the Government and utilize their courage and their mettlesome spirit, their capacity for suffering, to strengthen the daivi sampad of satyagraha. It is therefore very much to be desired that satyagraha is propagated as quickly as can be. This is in the interest both of the rulers and the ruled. The satyagrahi desires to harass neither the Government nor anyone else. He takes no step without the fullest deliberation. He is never arrogant. Consequently, he will keep away from ‘boycott’ but be always firm in the vow of swadeshi as a matter of duty. He fears God alone, so that no other power can intimidate him. He will never, out of fear of punishment, leave a duty undone.

I need hardly say now that it is our duty to resort to satyagraha to secure the release of the learned Annie Bai and her co-workers. Whether we approve of every or any action of hers is another question. I, for one, certainly do not approve of some of them; all the same, her incarceration by the Government is a great mistake and an act of injustice. I know, of course, that the Government does not think it a mistake. Maybe the people are wrong in desiring her release. The Government has acted according to its lights. What can the people do to express their outraged feelings? Petitions, etc., are good enough when one’s suffering is bearable. When it is unbearable, there is no remedy but satyagraha. Only when people find it unbearable will they, and only those who find it unbearable will, devote their all, body, mind and possessions, to securing the release of Annie Bai. This will be a powerful expression of popular feeling. It is my unshakable faith that before so great a self-sacrifice even the power of an emperor will give way. People may certainly restrain their feelings in view of the forthcoming visit of Mr. Montagu. That will be an expression of faith in his sense of justice. If she is not released, however, before his arrival, it will be our duty to resort to satyagraha. We do not want to provoke the Government or put difficulties in its way. By resorting to satyagraha, we reveal the intensity of our injured feelings and thereby serve the Government.

From a photostat of the Gujarati draft in Gandhiji’s hand: S. N. 6373

[About September 2, 1917]⁹

The force denoted by the term ‘passive resistance’ and translated into Hindi as nishkriya pratirodha is not very accurately described either by the original English phrase or by its Hindi rendering. Its correct description is ‘satyagraha’. Satyagraha was born in South Africa in 1908. There was no word in any Indian language denoting the power which our countrymen in South Africa invoked for the redress of their grievances. Their was an English equivalent, namely, ‘passive resistance’, and we carried on with it. However, the need for a word to describe this unique power came to be increasingly felt, and it was decided to award a prize to anyone who could think of an appropriate term. A Gujarati-speaking¹⁰ gentleman submitted the word ‘satyagraha’, and it was adjudged the best.

‘Passive resistance’ conveyed the idea of the Suffragette Movement in England. Burning of houses by these women was called ‘passive resistance’ and so also their fasting in prison. All such acts might very well be ‘passive resistance’ but they were not ‘satyagraha’. It is said of ‘passive resistance’ that it is the weapon of the weak, but the power which is the subject of this article can be used only by the strong. This power is not ‘passive’ resistance; indeed it calls for intense activity. The movement in South Africa was not passive but active. The Indians of South Africa believed that Truth was their object, that Truth ever triumphs, and with this definiteness of purpose they persistently held on to Truth. They put up with all the suffering that this persistence implied. With the conviction that Truth is not to be renounced even unto death, they shed the fear of death. In the cause of Truth, the prison was a palace to them and its doors the gateway to freedom.

Satyagraha is not physical force. A satyagrahi does not inflict pain on the adversary; he does not seek his destruction. A satyagrahi never resorts to firearms. In the use of satyagraha, there is no ill-will whatever.

Satyagraha is pure soul-force. Truth is the very substance of the soul. That is why this force is called satyagraha. The soul is informed with knowledge. In it burns the flame of love. If someone gives us pain through ignorance, we shall win him through love. “Non-violence is the supreme dharma”¹¹ is the proof of this power of love. Non-violence is a dormant state. In the waking state, it is love. Ruled by love, the world goes on. In English there is a saying, “Might is Right”. Then there is the doctrine of the survival of the fittest. Both these ideas are contradictory to the above principle. Neither is wholly true. If ill-will were the chief motive-force, the world would have been destroyed long ago; and neither would I have had the opportunity to write this article nor would the hopes of the readers be fulfilled. We are alive solely because of love. We are ourselves the proof of this. Deluded by modern western civilization, we have forgotten our ancient civilization ad worship the might of arms.

We forget the principle of non-violence, which is the essence of all religions. The doctrine of arms stands for irreligion. It is due to the sway of that doctrine that a sanguinary war is raging in Europe.

In India also we find worship of arms. We see it even in that great work of Tulsidas. But it is seen in all the books that soul-force is the supreme power.

Rama stands for the soul and Ravan for the non-soul. The immense physical might of Ravana is as nothing compared to the soul-force of Rama. Ravana’s ten heads are as straw to Rama. Rama is a yogi, he has conquered self and pride. He is “placid equally in affluence and adversity”, he has “neither attachment, nor greed nor the intoxication of status”. This represents the ultimate in satyagraha. The banner of satyagraha can again fly in the Indian sky and it is our duty to raise it. If we take recourse to satyagraha, we can conquer our conquerors the English, make them bow before our tremendous soul-force, and the issue will be of benefit to the whole world.

It is certain that India cannot rival Britain or Europe in force of arms. The British worship the war-god and they can all of them become, as they are becoming, bearers of arms. The hundreds of millions in India can never carry arms. They have made the religion of non-violence their own. It is impossible for the varnashram system to disappear from India.

The way of varnashram is a necessary law of nature. India, by making a judicious use of it, derives much benefit. Even the Muslims and the English in India observe this system to some extent. Outside of India, too, people follow it without being aware of it. So long as this institution of varnashram exists in India, everyone cannot bear arms here. The highest place in India is assigned to the brahmana dharma—which is soul-force. Even the armed warrior does obeisance to the Brahmin. So long as this custom prevails, it is vain for us to aspire for equality with the West in force of arms.

It is our kamadhenu¹². It brings good both to the satyagrahi and his adversary. It is ever victorious. For instance, Harishchandra was a satyagrahi, Prahlad was a satyagrahi, Mirabai was a satyagrahi. Daniel, Socrates and those Arabs who hurled themselves on the fire of the French artillery were all satyagrahis. We see from these examples that a satyagrahi does not fear for his body, he does not give up what he thinks is Truth; the word ‘defeat’ is not to be found in his dictionary, he does not wish for the destruction of his antagonist, he does not vent anger on him; but has only compassion for him.

A satyagrahi does not wait for others, but throws himself into the fray, relying entirely on his own resources. He trusts that when the time comes, others will do likewise. His practice is his precept. Like air, satyagraha is all-pervading. It is infectious, which means that all people—big and small, men and women—can become satyagrahis. No one is kept out from the army of satyagrahis. A satyagrahi cannot perpetrate tyranny on anyone; he is not subdued through application of physical force; he does not strike at anyone. Just as anyone can resort to satyagraha, it can be resorted to in almost any situation.

People demand historical evidence in support of satyagraha. History is for the most part a record of armed activities. Natural activities find very little mention in it. Only uncommon activities strike us with wonder. Satyagraha has been used always and in all situations. The father and the son, the man and the wife are perpetually resorting to satyagraha, one towards the other. When a father gets angry and punishes the son, the son does not hit back with a weapon, he conquers his father’s anger by submitting to him. The son refuses to be subdued by the unjust rule of his father but he puts up with the punishment that he may incur through disobeying the unjust father. We can similarly free ourselves of the unjust rule of the Government by defying the unjust rule and accepting the punishments that go with it. We do not bear malice towards the Government. When we set its fears at rest, when we do not desire to make armed assaults on the administrators, nor to unseat them from power, but only to get rid of their injustice, they will at once be subdued to our will.

The question is asked why we should call any rule unjust. In saying so, we ourselves assume the function of a judge. It is true. But in this world, we always have to act as judges for ourselves. That is why the satyagrahi does not strike his adversary with arms. If he has Truth on his side, he will win, and if his thought is faulty, he will suffer the consequences of his fault.

What is the good, they ask, of only one person opposing injustice; for he will be punished and destroyed, he will languish in prison or meet an untimely end through hanging. The objection is not valid. History shows that all reforms have begun with one person. Fruit is hard to come by without tapasya. The suffering that has to be undergone in satyagraha is tapasya in its purest form. Only when the tapasya is capable of bearing fruit, do we have the fruit. This establishes the fact that when there is insufficient tapasya, the fruit is delayed. The tapasya of Jesus Christ, boundless though it was, was not sufficient for Europe’s need. Europe has disapproved Christ. Through ignorance, it has disregarded Christ’s pure way of life. Many Christs will have to offer themselves as sacrifice at the terrible altar of Europe, and only then will realization dawn on that continent. But Jesus will always be the first among these. He has been the sower of the seed and his will therefore be the credit for raising the harvest.

It is said that it is a very difficult, if not an altogether impossible, task to educate ignorant peasants in satyagraha and that it is full of perils, for it is a very arduous business to transform unlettered ignorant people form one condition into another. Both the arguments are just silly. The people of India are perfectly fit to receive the training of satyagraha. India has knowledge of dharma, and where there is knowledge of dharma, satyagraha is a very simple matter. The people of India have drunk of the nectar of devotion. This great people overflows with faith. It is no difficult matter to lead such a people on to the right path of satyagraha. Some have a fear that once people get involved in satyagraha, they may at a later stage take to arms. This fear is illusory. From the path of satyagraha [clinging to Truth], a transition to the path of a-satyagraha [clinging to untruth] is impossible. It is possible of course that some people who believe in armed activity may mislead the satyagrahis by infiltrating into their ranks and later making them take to arms. This is possible in all enterprises. But as compared to other activities, it is less likely to happen in satyagraha, for their motives soon get exposed and when the people are not ready to take up arms, it becomes almost impossible to lead them on to that terrible path. The might of arms is directly opposed to the might of satyagraha. Just as darkness does not abide in light, soulless armed activity cannot enter the sunlike radiance of soul-force. Many Pathans took part in South Africa abiding by all the rules of satyagraha.

Then it is said that much suffering is involved in being a satyagrahi and that the entire people will not be willing to put up with this suffering. The objection is not valid. People in general always follow in the footsteps of the noble. There is no doubt that it is difficult to produce a satyagrahi leader. Our experience is that a satyagrahi needs many more virtues like self-control, fearlessness, etc., than are requisite for one who believes in armed action. The greatness of the man bearing arms does not lie in the superiority of the arms, nor does it lie in his physical prowess. It lies in his determination and fearlessness in face of death. General Gordon was a mighty warrior of the British Empire. In the statue that has been erected in his memory he has only a small baton in his hand. It goes to show that the strength of a warrior is not measured by reference to his weapons but by his firmness of mind. A satyagrahi needs millions of times more of such firmness than does a bearer of arms. The birth of such a man can bring about the salvation of India in no time. Not only India but the whole world awaits the advent of such a man. We may in the meanwhile prepare the ground as much as we can through satyagraha.

How can we make use of satyagraha in the present conditions? Why should we take to satyagraha in the fight for freedom? We are all guilty of killing manliness. So long as our learned Annie Besant is in detention, it is an insult to our manhood. How can we secure her release through satyagraha? It may be that the Government has acted in good faith, that it has sufficient grounds for keeping her under detention. But, at any rate, the people are unhappy at her being deprived of her freedom. Annie Besant cannot be freed through armed action. No Indian will approve of such an action. We cannot secure her freedom by submitting petitions and the like. Much time has passed. We can all humbly inform the Government that if Mrs. Annie Besant is not released within the time limit prescribed by us, we will all be compelled to follow her path. It is possible that all of us do not like all her actions; but we find nothing in her action which threatens the “established Government”¹³ or the vested interests. Therefore we too by participating in her activities will ask for her lot, that is, we shall all court imprisonment. The members of our Legislative Assembly also can petition the Government and when the petition is not accepted, they can resign their membership. For swaraj also, satyagraha is the unfailing weapon. Satyagraha means that what we want is truth, that we deserve it and that we will work for it even unto death.

Nothing more need be said. Truth alone triumphs. There is no dharma higher than Truth. Truth always wins. We pray to God that in this sacred land we may bring about the reign of dharma by following satyagraha and that this our country may become an example for all to follow.
[From Hindi]
Mahatma Gandhi, Ramchandra Varma

AHMEDABAD,
September 6, 1917

MY DEAR ESTHER,

I was delighted to receive your note. I hope to be in Madras for a day only on the 14th instant. I shall have to leave on the 15th instant in the evening.

Ever since my arrival here, I have been on the move trying to spread the gospel of satyagraha in the place of methods of violence. It is an uphill task. You will see from the enclosed what I mean by satyagraha.

It was not my intention that your remarks upon dress should be published. I forgot to warn Dr. M. about it. He liked your views so much that he could not restrain himself. I do hope you don’t mind my sending to Dr. M. such of your letters as may appear to be helpful.

‘To be free from desire’ is a technical expression and means desire to be or possess something short of the highest. Thus, love of God is not a ‘desire’. It is the natural longing. But to possess a fortune so that I may do good is a desire and therefore to be curbed. Our good acts must be as natural to us as the twinkling of our eyes. Without our desiring, they act automatically. The doing of good should be just as natural to us.

Yours ever,
BAPU

My Dear Child, pp. 21-2

¹ Vide “Note on the Situation in Champaran—VI”, 17-6-1917.

² A senior member of the Danish Mission in South India

³ Published in Gujarati, 2-9-1917

⁴ Glory to God

⁵ &

⁶ Sons of Ali by his wife Fatima, daughter of the Prophet. They refused to acknowledge the authority of Yazid (Caliph, 680-3). Hussain revolted against him, but was defeated and killed at Karbala.

⁷ Godlike equipment and demoniac equipment (Vide Bhagavad Gita, XVI, 3, 4)

⁸ The original Gujarati is not available.

⁹ This article appears to belong to the same date as the preceding item.

¹⁰ The source has ‘Hindi-speaking’.

¹¹ Ahimsa Paramo Dharmah

¹² Mythical cow which yielded whatever one wished

¹³ The English phrase is used.