Arun Gandhi: Using Religion to Justify Violence is Always Wrong

[suchandra]

Co-founder of the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence.

 

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/arun_gandhi/2009/02/religion_and_violence.html

Arun Gandhi is the fifth grandson of India’s legendary leader, Mohandas K. “Mahatma” Gandhi. He is co-founder of the M. K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence, now at the University of Rochester in New York. more »

 

Using Religion to Justify Violence is Always Wrong

 

Posted by Arun Gandhi on February 25, 2009 12:03 AM

My understanding of religion is that it can have no justification for violence of any kind -- domestic or general. Violence is justified by priests in all religions by misinterpreting and/or misunderstanding a philosophy. Added to this is the tragedy that that we approach religion dogmatically.

For instance, in the case of Hinduism, those who justify violence say the Bhagavad Gita, the Hindu sacred text, is all about a war between the forces of good and evil. According to my Grandfather, Mohandas K. Gandhi, this is a dogmatic approach. Firstly the text was written thousands of years ago and secondly it is written in the form of a poem and obviously the poet has taken literary license.

The war depicted was not meant to be taken literally but it was to be understood in the figurative sense as the war (or turmoil) that we all face everyday when we are called upon to choose between what we know at that moment to be good and evil. Similar arguments can be made about the depiction of turmoil in other religious scriptures. Grandfather said: When imperfect human beings (there is no one among us who can claim to be perfect!) translate scripture we reach an imperfect understanding of religion. God and religion is, and can only be, about love, compassion, understanding and not someone who is blood-thirsty for revenge.

 

Please e-mail On Faith if you'd like to receive an email notification when On Faith sends out a new question.

[chandu_69]

 

Co-founder of the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence.

 

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/arun_gandhi/2009/02/religion_and_violence.html

Arun Gandhi is the fifth grandson of India’s legendary leader, Mohandas K. “Mahatma” Gandhi. He is co-founder of the M. K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence, now at the University of Rochester in New York. more »

 

Using Religion to Justify Violence is Always Wrong

 

 

 

Ohh yeah; nothing new.It seems the blood spilled during partition riots is not enough for the grandson .The terrorists dont give a damn what mk gandhi or his progeny says.

[suchandra]

 

Ohh yeah; nothing new.It seems the blood spilled during partition riots is not enough for the grandson .The terrorists dont give a damn what mk gandhi or his progeny says.

They still insist upon interpretating the Gita like Kuruksetra is the body and the Pandavas are the five senses etc.

 

Guest (Indian man): Could it be that there may be different interpretations?

Prabhupada: No, that is not possible. That is not the process. You cannot interpret Bhagavad-gita. If you want to preach Bhagavad- gita, you must preach what Krsna has said. If you have got a different philosophy, you can say differently. You don’t cheat people that you take Bhagavad-gita and interpret in your own way and cheat others and be cheated yourself. You cannot do that.

Guest: Well, for example, Tilak Maharaj…

Prabhupada: Tilak may be, Gandhi may be, whoever may be. But the point is that you have to understand Bhagavad-gita according to the direction of the author. Because you are Mr. Tilak or Mr. Gandhi, you can do everything on Bhagavad-gita…

Guest: No no, that is not the idea. But there are different type slokas.

Prabhupada: Now how you have got a different types of… Just like the Bhagavad-gita begins, dharma-ksetre kuru-ksetre samaveta yuyutsavaḥ [Bg. 1.1]. So dharma-ksetre kuru-ksetre, how you can interpret in a different way? Kurukṣetra is already there. But how you can interpret, “Kurukṣetra means this, Kurukṣetra means that?” You cannot interpret.

Guest: Yes, but who is decided what exactly the meaning…

Prabhupāda: Exactly the meaning is there.

Guest: Literal, literally.

Prabhupada: Literally, yes. The thing is the interpretation is required when you cannot understand. If, if I say, “This is a stick,” everyone knows it is a stick. So I say, “Here is a stick.” So if you say, “No, I do not accept it is stick.” So what is that interpretation? Everyone knows it is stick. Similarly, Kurukṣetra means that the place, still existing. And in the Vedic sastra it is ordered, kuruksetre dharma yajayet. You go… From time immemorial it is a place of pilgrimage. Even Kṛṣṇa, during solar eclipse, Kṛṣṇa with His family, He came there, Jagannatha. The ceremony is there, Ratha-yatra. Because Kṛṣṇa, Balarama and Subhadra came in the same chariot. That is being performed. So Kurukṣetra, dharmaksetra, at least five thousand years ago the system was that people used to come to Kurukṣetra as a place of pilgrimage, dharmaksetra. And Kurukṣetra, the place is there. And the the two family members, the Kurus and the Pandavas, they fought. The Battle of Kurukṣetra took place. These things are evident. Then why there is need of interpreting? That is the first point.

Guest: Those points are very clear.

Prabhupada: Every point is very clear. In the Bhagavad-gita, every point is very clear, unless you interpret it in the wrong way.

 

Room Conversation

with His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

December 20, 1976, Bombay

full lecture: http://causelessmercy.com/t/t/761220rc.bom.htm

[Sephiroth]

While I don't reject the importance of Ahimsa principles which brought by Mahatma, I don't think it applies to terrorists today. No offense attended to Mahatma, his descendants or those who follow Ahimsa principles.

 

Simply because of one difference between the British (whom Mahatma have fought) and the terrorists (we are fighting) today.

 

The British - no matter how bad they were some 80 years ago, had a sense of honor and virtue. They robbed from India but they also brought in modern developments such as railroad, roads, public facilities and so much more. So, in a way, the British did something good in return for what they have taken. In that context, Mahatma wanted to "sent them off" in a proper manner and he did.

 

But today's terrorists are different. They don't want anything except to DIE and be rewarded in (their so-called) heaven with things like 72 virgins. They want to DIE for their Islam and they will make ANY excuses to do so. They do not want to live and they will continue to fight and disturb us (the non-Muslims) so we could wage war and kill them (or killed by them).

 

So, in my opinion - Ahimsa principles will not work on this people. Matter a fact, it will only empower them to do more evil than they already doing.

 

By not fighting back, they will assume that we are weak and willing to submit to them, and this will encourage them to abuse us more. Only options we have is to fight back.

 

And God WILL be with us just as Sri Krishna was with Arjuna when he choose to fight. Remember the lessons Sri Krishna taught to Arjuna about not letting go of one's basic rights, and prepare to fight.

[jeffster]

Arun Gandhi is suggesting that his grandfather did not believe that there were any perfect humans, and that humans, being imperfect, were interpreting shastra. We do not accept this, and Prabhupad was the prime example of a perfected human being, who did not interpret shastra. The Gandhis are interpreting shastra according to their imperfect understanding. Gandhi is just one more fallible soldier. He was warned not to go to the meeting (where he was assassinated), but still he went anyway. Non-violence can only be used against a reasonable foe; as Sepiroth suggested, the British had some degree of honor. But in this case we are dealing with a foe of subhuman mentality. Therefore, we accept that we have a right to self-defense against this arrogant, misguided foe. At some point we must defend ourselves, and that defense must be with full arms. Ksatriyas are the arms of the social body; therefore the social body must be defended by people with ksatriya intelligence using full armament (sp). If our motivation is correct like this, then what reaction can come to us ?

 

Hare Krishna.

jeffster/AMd

[Sephiroth]

by jeffster

 

He was warned not to go to the meeting (where he was assassinated), but still he went anyway.

 

If he does not go, then it could mean that he was submit to threats and violence. In my opinion, the very action which Mahatma went ahead to the meeting is to show that he was not afraid to face up to threats in pursue of Ahimsa.

 

If you are afraid of getting a beating, then what use is it of you speaking of fighting others? Half way, you will be afraid of getting beaten up and submit to your foe in fear of pain and suffering.

 

... as Sepiroth suggested, the British had some degree of honor. But in this case we are dealing with a foe of subhuman mentality. Therefore, we accept that we have a right to self-defense against this arrogant, misguided foe.

 

The difference between the British some 100 years ago and Muslims today is that the British actually thought that, since they are well-educated in a modern learning facility, earning a degree and a title of Scholar, that they were above the Indians who were living in India that time. The British could not see the truth and wisdom in ancient Hindu texts and sees only what they want to see with sense of ignorant, blind pride and boostfulness.

 

What the British were trying to do was educate and "civilise" the Indians to their (British) point of civilizations. The British believed that Indians could only be civilised when they are wearing coat and suits like they did, eat with fork and spoon like they did, speak in English, and accept English customs as they own. Indians who wore dhoti, eat with their hands, speak native tongues and worship "idols" (as they claimed) are not civilised in their manner. That is why the British wanted to change Hindus to "westernized Indians".

 

But the Muslim terrorists doesn't want to change anything. They do not see Non-Muslims as humans, they consider that Islam ALONE is worth following, that their Allah ALONE is worth worshipping and no matter what others say, their Al Quran is perfect. Anyone says otherwise are considered as "Enemies of Islam" and they could wage war against such "enemies".

 

In another word, Muslims have already choose you as their enemies. It is you (non-Muslims) who continue to delude yourselves into thinking that you could live in peace with this people. You cannot achieve peace with people who have been trained since birth to see you as their enemies.

[Amlesh]

Well, 2 people with 2 different mission.. one was a Brahmana, the other Kshatriya.

And hence their activities can't be compared.

The only thing that you can see and say between them was Love and want for God.

They were matchless.

Both MK and SP.

 

Concerning the Literal thinking of Violence.. then my friends.. you are still not getting it.

[primate]

 

... the Muslim terrorists doesn't want to change anything. They do not see Non-Muslims as humans, they consider that Islam ALONE is worth following, that their Allah ALONE is worth worshipping and no matter what others say, their Al Quran is perfect. Anyone says otherwise are considered as "Enemies of Islam" and they could wage war against such "enemies". ...

Most people would agree that violence is justified to defend the innocent, provided that it is used only after nonviolent alternatives have been exhausted (as time and circumstances permit) and the violence used is not excessive; in other words, the amount or kind of violence employed is not more than is needed to achieve the objective: the defence of the innocent.

 

However, it seems impossible to use non-excessive violence to defend the innocent against terrorism. In fact, anti-terrorism or 'war on terrorism' seems to be far more dangerous than terrorism. Thousands of innocent people may be killed as a result of large scale military operations. In the latest Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for example, Israeli forces killed over a thousand innocent people in Gaza, whereas only a few Israeli citizens are ever killed as a result of Hamas terrorism (not to be confused with Hezbolla and Fatah).

 

Terrorism is a political instrument. It is violence (or the threat of violence) calculated to create an atmosphere of fear and alarm. From a terrorist’s point of view, a terrorist act may not even be excessively violent, although the victims are generally innocent and the objective may be to support himself (if he is still alive after the act) or to support his family that receives a financial compensation if the act was suicidal (in which case he himself will be rewarded in heaven) and/or to enforce his personal ideology upon a society.

 

As long as a terrorist organization remains hidden, it cannot be harmed without excessive violence, but it cannot do too much harm itself either. Large scale organized terrorism will be visible and can be exposed and dealt with, without an excessive amount of violence (although this might sound paradoxical). Thus far, however, we can see terrorism more or less as a normal risk of life, like the risk we take when we drive a car, or smoke a cigarette, or overeat. Moreover, when we would be able to stop being scared of terrorism, the whole method will become pointless and vanish..

[Sephiroth]

by Primate

 

... kind of violence employed is not more than is needed to achieve the objective: the defence of the innocent.

 

You, my friend are a delusional person. WHAT do you mean by "violence employed is NOT more than is needed?" HOW do you (or ANYONE) for that matter define how much violence is needed?

 

Even with a single person against another single person, one cannot know how much is enough. First comes the heated argument, then the shoving, then the light-hits and finally the full-scale fist fight. Lastly, a murder trial by a person who thought the "enough" have yet to be reached till it was too late to stop it. Path to Violence cannot be controlled.

 

In that context, defending the innocent must be done in OTHER WAYS other than by fighting. However, IF a fight must be done, then FIGHT TO THE END. Till one side remains and the other have fallen.

 

However, it seems impossible to use non-excessive violence to defend the innocent against terrorism.

 

Yes, that is true. Terrorism works the best when the terrorists deploy their war tactics onto the innocent people.

 

I have been studying the situations which occurred prior to Sept. 11 attack. Did you know that terrorists had attacked two US warships which laid anchor in Yemen and Saudi Arabia (if not mistaken) before the Sept 11? In both cases, US militarymen were killed but the US government did not take actions such as attacking another country as it did after Sept. 11.

 

In both attacks, the terrorists did not get what they wanted (a full-scale war with US) simply because they were attacking people who were trained and prepared to die for their country. They turn and attack innocent people when their attacks failed to draw US into a war.

 

In fact, anti-terrorism or 'war on terrorism' seems to be far more dangerous than terrorism. Thousands of innocent people may be killed as a result of large scale military operations.

 

Make no mistakes - MILLIONS WILL DIE if terrorism are allowed to go unchecked. It could be only matter of time before countries like Iraq and Iran obtains nuclear technology and what do you think will happen then?

 

Do you think nuclear explosions will choose not to kill one group while killing off another? Do you think you and your brethens in India will be safe if terrorists were to nuke New York?

 

No, the World will face nuclear winter and MILLIONS IF NOT BILLIONS WILL DIE due to various causes such as radiation sickness, lack of drinking water and starvations. Worse case senario - Human race will be wiped out and the atmosphere will fail - wiping out EVERY LIVING BREATHING ORGANISMS on the Surface of the Planet.

 

As long as a terrorist organization remains hidden, it cannot be harmed without excessive violence, but it cannot do too much harm itself either.

 

Actually, terrorists are much WEAKER than what you think. What do you think makes them stronger? They are WEAK which is why they need to hide in a hole somewhere.

 

They look stronger to you because YOU make them stronger. It is people like you and so many more who refuse to question their beliefs (Islam) which allows them to roam free. When you start to attack their beliefs, they will have no choice but to surface up to defend their belief. And trust me - Islam IS THE WEAKEST belief on the Planet and easily destroyed.

 

Therefore, the real enemy which we should face is ISLAM. Destroy that - and the terrorists WILL fall.

[primate]

 

... WHAT do you mean by "violence employed is NOT more than is needed?" HOW do you (or ANYONE) for that matter define how much violence is needed? ...

Well, as I stated in my previous post: Most people would agree that violence is acceptable if it is employed to defend innocent people against the bad guys, and if the amount of violence is not more than the amount that is obviously necessary to defend those that we believe are innocent victims in a conflict.

 

I would add to this definition: It is not allowed to kill thousands of innocent people in order to save just a few. Yet, such excessive violence against another society is apparently what is necessary to stop terrorism.

 

Again, terrorism is a political tool. There will always be terrorism in this world. What you are talking about is war, or a combination of war and terrorism. War is very different from terrorism. War is world wide chaos. And chaos has its own rules..

[Sephiroth]

No, I don't think Terrorism is a political tool.

 

There is no politicians involved in organizing terrorist attacks. Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussien are not politicians (even so they may look like one). They are religious zealots - madmen like Adolf Hitler - who are following false beliefs and forcing it down onto another person or society.

 

In this case, the real culprit (or cause) is ISLAM. As long as everyone choose to ignore this simple fact, terrorism WILL stay.

 

Islam have taught them how to be barbaric because it is a belief which came from barbaric Arabs who have divided themselves into clans and have been waging war against each other for centuries. They do not know how to live in peace and they have fashioned their beliefs into Islam.

[primate]

Politics is the process by which groups of people make decisions. The term is commonly applied to behavior within civil governments, but it generally applies to all human groups, including corporate, academic, and religious organizations. (from Wikipedia)

 

A political tool or instrument is any methodical activity that is aimed at influencing a political decision process. This includes political debate, legal processes, public demonstrations, conventional military action, and also terrorism.

 

Any group or society that cannot win a conventional war, might at some point resort to terrorism as a cheap and sustainable method to influence the politics of their adversaries. International Islamist terrorism aims at influencing democratic political decision processes by inducing fear in the hearts and minds of the general public.

 

However, such terrorism in itself is not a real threat to our society. The real danger is that we will make irrational political decisions out of perceived danger and fear, and incidentally start a world war. Another danger is that political leaders will use the terrorism argument as an excuse to invade other countries out of political and economical self-interest, which also might start a world war.

[tackleberry]

Terrorism is just a scare tactic invented by the ruling class to keep people trapped in fear and paranoia. As long as their minds are diverted from important issues (like education and health care) to terrorism, they can be manipulated easily. This is what governments the world over do. War on terror is just an excuse to kill people and control their resources and labor, nothing more. Is it any wonder that this war on terror has killed more people than actual terror itself?

[jeffster]

The death of Gandhi at the hands of a gunman demonstrates the limits of a non-violent approach towards people with guns. He should have gone to the meeting with at least a bodyguard. Of course, that would have been likely contrary to his personal belief system, so he became a "martyr" instead. But real defense means ability to use arms; yes, we may be defeated and suffer at the hands of the foe, or we may win...

 

jeffster/AMd

[hari_ks77]

religion to justify violence is to be banned.

But why is a person opposing Gandhi put up this post? Don't follow Gandhi partially..

 

-Hari.

[Amlesh]

Death is Truth and how to die is just an excuse.

 

Had MK cared so much about his body's death.. he would not have become that rare soul that Krishna described to Arjuna.

 

Neither would have India obtained its Independence.

[jeffster]

Here is a link to a post by Patita Pavana das in Dandavats of a letter Prabhupad wrote to Gandhi on 7 July 1947. The letter speaks for itself:

 

www.dandavats.com/?p=7007#more-7007

 

jeffster/AMd

[primate]

 

Here is a link to a post by Patita Pavana das in Dandavats of a letter Prabhupad wrote to Gandhi on 7 July 1947. The letter speaks for itself:

 

www.dandavats.com/?p=7007#more-7007

 

jeffster/AMd

In this letter Mahatma Gandhi was warned by Prabhupada:

 

...

I tell you as a sincere friend that you must immediately retire from

active politics if you do not desire to die an inglorious death. You

have 125 years to live as you have desired to live but you if you die

an inglorious death it is no worth. The honour and prestige that you

have obtained during the course of your present life time, were not

possible to be obtained by any one else within the living memory. But

you must know that all these honours and prestiges were false in as

much as they were created by the Illusory Energy of Godhead called the

maya.

...

But if you really want to approach the Absolute Truth and want to do

some real good to the people in general all over the world, which

shall include your ideas of unity, peace and non-violence, then you

must give up the rotten politics immediately and rise up for the

preaching work of the philosophy and religion of “Bhagavad-gita”

without offering unnecessary and dogmatic interpretations on them. I

had occasionally discussed this subject in my paper “Back to Godhead”

and a leaf from the same is enclosed herewith for your reference.

...

 

So, politics is maya (illusion). Therefore political tools such as war and terrorism are maya. Therefore violence is maya. Does this mean, non-violence will lead us to God?

[jeffster]

Did non-violence lead Gandhi to God or just to rebirth ? Supposedly he died with the name of Rama on his lips. Was it the real Ram ? Or shadow name ? Does anyone know Gandhis next destination ? I certainly can't answer that.

 

What I can say conclusively, though, is that violence, as a defensive measure, is not only justifiable but sometimes necessary. Violence and non-violence both exist within the realm of duality. Both are coming just like the coming and going of the winter and summer seasons. One who knows when and how to apply violence, for defensive measures, is acting appropriately according to time and circumstance. Failure to apply violence, as a defensive measure, when appropriate, could be considered sinful. In other words, a pacifistic response, when violence is called for, is inappropriate.

 

jeffster/AMd

[Narasingh]

 

Failure to apply violence, as a defensive measure, when appropriate, could be considered sinful.

Jeffster, I am in complete agreement with you here. I think a common misconception is that India obtained its independence because of M. K. Gandhi. Many elements of his ideals are meritorious. However, there are many variables to apply to India's independence. One glaringly powerful variable is that India's Independence happened to occur shortly after WWII. Any historian would know how much of a drain on Britain's resources WWII was. Their infrastructure was demolished and they had to rebuild. Couple that along with worldwide skirmishes (many desiring freedom from the British Commonwealth) (including the territories known today as Israel and Palestine) you have a recipe for independence !

Although M.K. Gandhi's movement had a notable role in the Independence Movement of India, I think its unfair to suggest it is the cause of India's Independence.

[jeffster]

Hello Narasingh,

Yes, time and circumstance favored Gandhi at that point in time, as the British were quite exhausted.

jeffster/AMd

[Sephiroth]

 

religion to justify violence is to be banned.

But why is a person opposing Gandhi put up this post? Don't follow Gandhi partially..

 

-Hari.

 

Agreed ... the people of the World must take sides now. They MUST choose Peace over Violence. And that could mean that ANY religion which promotes Violence for ANY REASONS whatsoever, MUST BE BANNED.

 

It will be our ultimate "sacrifice" for Peace and Tranquility.

 

When Man have reach the level of maturity where he have discard his own religion for sake of Peace and Good will among humans, then Man have achieve a state of Maturity we could all be proud off.

 

Be one voice - BAN RELIGIONS which promote Violence.

[Amlesh]

Gandhiji followed his path just as Arjuna was ordered to do.

As a Ksatriya, He did not leave his duty as a politician.

 

The weapons used by Arjuna was different than that of Gandhiji.. still the war was on.

The use of violence already started before the Advent of Gandhiji.. but to no avail, only he knew the best weapon to get independence.

 

Had Himsa been the best tool for independence.. he would have used so.

Remember he was once asked whether Ahimsa was a good option against Hitler, he answered "MIGHT BE".

[jeffster]

It appears that the terrorists are actually just Kali yuga thugs, but then earth during Kali yuga basically fills up with thug-like two-legged animals until Kalki Avatar shows up to set things right again:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/21/AR2009032101969.html

 

jeffster/AMD

"Adore 'ya, fellowship !!"

[jeffster]

This link is the latest news on the Pakistani terrorist situation. Where are they getting their American-made weapons ? Captured battlefield weapons ? Or purchased by the Taliban from a country such as Saudi Arabia or Pakistan itself ? Don't some of the Islamic states receive some training and weaponry from the U.S. as part of an "aid" package ?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/world/asia/31pstan.html?partner=MOREOVERNEWS&ei=5040

 

jeffster/AMd