Martin Luther King, Jr. visited India in 1959, an event which is described in detail at the King Encyclopedia (a site that has been linked to before at Sepia Mutiny). King, as is well known, modeled his approach to civil rights in the United States on Gandhi’s successful mass non-violence/civil disobedience campaign for Indian independence.
On NPR last week, there was a story about how All India Radio has recently discovered in its archives the recorded version of the address given by Dr. King at the end of his visit to India.
Through a little bit of digging on Google, I found the actual recording posted on the internet, at the website of the Indian Consulate of Chicago.
For me the highlight of the address is the closing, which I’ll take the liberty of including here:
Many years ago, when Abraham Lincoln was shot – and incidentally, he was shot for the same reason that Mahatma Gandhi was shot for; namely, for committing the crime of wanting to heal the wounds of a divided nation. And when he was shot, Secretary Stanton stood by the dead body of the great leader and said these words: “now, he belongs to the ages.†And in a real sense, we can say the same thing about Mahatma Gandhi, and even in stronger terms: “now, he belongs to the ages.â€
And if this age is to survive, it must follow the way of love and non-violence that he so nobly illustrated in his life. Mahatma Gandhi may well be God’s appeal to this generation, a generation drifting again to its doom. And this eternal appeal is in the form of a warning: they that live by the sword shall perish by the sword.
We must come to see in the world today that what he taught, and his method throughout, reveals to us that there is an alternative to violence, and that if we fail to follow this we will perish in our individual and in our collective lives. For in a day when Sputniks and explorers dash through outer space and guided ballistic missiles are carving highways of death through the stratosphere, no nation can win a war.
Today we no longer have a choice between violence and non-violence; it is either non-violence, or non-existence. (link)
Perhaps the meanings of King and Gandhi’s respective messages have changed as times have changed. India is no longer a country with a colonial chip on its shoulder, and minorities in the U.S. have a shining example of success in President Barack Obama (among many other signs of progress). It is probably a bit too easy and nostalgic to simply savor those past struggles without continually seeking to apply them to our messy current situations; with too much familiarity and Big Talk, these two icons of struggle risk becoming bloated relics. (For example, by the 1970s, Gandhianism in India had become an easy symbol, devoid of substance — one thinks of the overweight Congress politicians in homespun, happily siphoning off crores of Rupees for Swiss bank accounts.)
Also, it may be that rigorous non-violence cannot mean the same thing for us today as it did for African Americans who demanded a seat at the American table, or Indians who demanded sovereignty (a seat at the table of nations). Perhaps King and Gandhi’s shared dream of a total, worldwide movement away from a social order based on violence (active or potential) is one we’ll have to put away for the foreseeable future, as simply not in keeping with human nature. Satyagraha is a brilliant strategy for mobilizing the Indian masses to defeat the most powerful, thoroughly armed Empire the world has ever known, without bloodshed. But in my view it is neither effective nor appropriate as a response to Jihadists on the streets of Mumbai, or Maoist rebels in eastern India, to name just two examples. (I am not a pacifist myself for this reason.)
And yet, is it not still chastening to hear these words, even in these times? (Listen to the speech.) As I say, some of the diacritics may have changed, but I think King’s warning still stands: “they that live by the sword shall perish by the sword.” Gaza. Sri Lanka. Iraq. India-Pakistan. Isn’t that still the truth we need to hear?
Wonderful, insightful and eloquent post, Amardeep. Thanks for the links, too.
Amardeep,
Thank you so much for all the writing you do here. I love reading your posts and get an education out of it every time. My parents are always amazed at the things I show them. Usually I find them here.
thanks for the link. i like listening to yesteryear speeches, as much for the language as for the content.
with all the useful links you and the others provide, i wonder if at some point — when there’s time and resources — it would be possible for SM to do a sort of guide or appendix of links by subject or theme. sometimes i mean to click on them and then forget and then can’t remember which post it was in.
I wonder why your list of nations who live by the sword will perish by word does not include U.S. and Israel–two nations that likes to use its (very big) swords often. Why are Gaza (a refugee camp of third generation displaced Palestinians with no homeland) and Iraq (a nation invaded by another) mentioned and not the nations that brought out the swords in the first place.
I wonder why your list of nations who live by the sword will perish by word does not include U.S. and Israel–two nations that likes to use its (very big) swords often. Why are Gaza (a refugee camp of third generation displaced Palestinians with no homeland) and Iraq (a nation invaded by another) mentioned and not the nations that brought out the swords in the first place.
Fair point. In giving that list of flash-points, I wasn’t thinking of them as the specific people who “live by the sword and perish by the sword.” Rather, I was using the word “Gaza” as a short-hand name for a complex problem where, if all involved parties were to remember that mantra, it might have a beneficial impact.
Still, I might go back and tweak the list slightly along the lines of your question.
Thank you, Amardeep, for a thoughtful, insightful piece. And thank you for daring to mention Gaza.
Ven, you’re misreading Amardeep’s piece. He’s mentioning Gaza and Iraq as the places that are being threatened by the sword, not as the places that’re using the sword. And, in mentioning them, he’s pointing towards the countries that are so quick to use the sword, i.e. Israel and the US. Unfortunately, discussing Israel openly is pretty much ‘censored’ in the US, witness the vicious attacks on Bill Moyers for even attempting an even-handed piece.
Love that.
A wonderful sentiment.
Off the top of my head, here are a few more nations you can add that maintain an army / paramiltary force or have employed violence in some form of the other.
http://www.un.org/members/list.shtml
And here is a list of current nations that have employed non-violence throughout their history: http://www.un.org/members/nonviolentnationslist.html
🙂
A wonderful sentiment.
Yeah, ok — smirk if you like.
I was trying to draw a distinction between total pacifism, which is hard to come by, and reserving the use of violence for when it is absolutely necessary. Those who do the latter cannot be said to “live by the sword.” (In Sri Lanka, for instance, wouldn’t it be more effective to work towards a political solution, rather than bomb the Tamil separatists into oblivion?)
6 · mogwai said
Daring? I don’t understand. There’s a whole post that dared to mention it.
But has human nature changed that much since King or Gandhi?
Who is maintaining this refugee status? Why couldn’t the neighboring nations (especially Lebanon, Syria, Jordan) simply absorb this group of very similar to themselves people? Isn’t it true that their refugee status is being perpetuated by themselves as well as their Muslim co-religionists as a way of keeping the heat on Israel and keeping this issue alive? You don’t have camps of third generation refugee Punjabis/Sindhis who came to India in 1947…why is that? It’s because of the different mentality of both the host societies AND the refugees themselves. If the Arab countries I mention above had simply welcomed all the Palestinians, made them citizens, allowed them to become part of their societies, the third generation would be assimilated into those nations and getting on with their lives. Meanwhile Israel could also live in peace. The whole issue would be dead. Yes it would have been a defeat for the Palestinians…one they would have had to get over and move on..just as all the people who left newly-founded Pakistan in 1947 and moved to India had to do.
Very insightful post! Love the quote – “Today we no longer have a choice between violence and non-violence; it is either non-violence, or non-existence.“
Thanks
Mogwai, if you have something off-topic to say to me, please do not thread-jack this post to do it. 🙂 Thank you.
“I may be blinded by my love for him, but I believe when we most needed it, he offered the world a way out of madness. But he doesn’t see it. Neither does the world.†Richard Attenborough’s Gandhi. (1982)
great link. love hearing Dr King speak.
10 · Amitabh said
Why should other Arab nations absorb them? Why not have Europe absorb their European Jews? The Palestinians are fighting for a homeland, and will continue to.
Your post is exactly why there is no peace because Israel doesn’t believe in a two-state solution, because, like you, it believes that Palestinians don’t have a right to the land and should be absorbed by other Arab nations.
I love how people say that Palestinians don’t want a two state solution, when the entire ideological position and actions (ever expanding settlements) of Israel reflect your position: there can be no state for the Palestinians. So Hamas is at fault for arguing for Israel’s destruction, but Israel is not at fault for pushing the idea that Palestinians do not have a right to the land at all?
Thanks for pointing out why there is no peace and no two state solution. That’s why Israel never agrees to stop building settlements–it believes it has right to all this land and more–Lebanon and Syria are its too.
Occupation mindset to the T.
Anna,
I think you may have been confused. The quote is what MLK said.
Re #14: Ven, exactly.
While I would agree that there might be occasions when one needs to resort to violence (but only as a last resort and after considering– and trying– every other option), satyagraha is unlikely to lead to the sort of bitterness that converts moderate people to become brainwashed by jihadists/fundamentalists. Violence, on the other hand, is almost guaranteed to cause hate of a magnitude that only leads people to think the only thing worth living for is revenge.
Those 350 children slaughtered in Palestine in the last few days…can you imagine what is going through their families heads right now? Not to miss the hundreds with amputated limbs, full body burns with phosphorous, and blindings…and, of course, the 800 or so adults dead…
On the same note, here is a link to an MLK interview unearthed by the BBC where he speaks of an African American President in 40 years! Fascinating!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/world_news_america/default.stm
usually my comments have a tinge of sarcasm. but, all i can say is nice post, thanks.
Listening to King’s India speech was very inspiring, far from a “relic”. In many ways Satyagraha is coming full circle, being reborn in my childrens’ generation.
Mumbai attacks catalysed the Indian elite and commoner alike against the arrogant do nothing Chief Ministers and nepotistic Congress wallahs who for long sheltered under the Gandhian umbrella. As a youngster I knew and worked with many of them. There is hope for a transformation in Indian politics as these dinosaurs die off.
I agree with you on combating terror. The Dalai Lama last week stated he no longer believes Gandhiji’s way can work with jihadis. “Reasoning and non-violence cannot work because their minds are closed”, he said.
15 · daycruz said
Yes, I was confused. Too much inauguration, too little sleep (and food). Thank you for pointing it out (and for being so nice about it). I removed that part of my comment.
Speculations about human nature always remind of Emma Goldman:
I’m not really sure what it means to put away the idea of non-violence – do you see any instances where it’s out and about and needs to be curtailed? Everywhere in the world, violence is responding to violence; someone’s brother, sister, aunt, son, lover, spouse is killed, and he or she takes to violence as a response. How is this sustainable?
At least non-violence has an end in sight. Our current global paradigm of violence doesn’t have any end in sight, only means. Where’s the future in that?
Also: thanks, Amardeep, for digging up the recording. I found it very moving.
22 · ptr_vivek said
only to be surpassed by the crimes committed in denying thy name.
Thanks for this post and the recording of course. though, i often wonder, if Gandhi had been living in these tumultuous times, where violence is dealt with more violence, injustice is dealt with more injustice, would he have been reduced to a peacenik? a liberal? His views of non-violence as a weapon reduced to the ‘white flag of surrender’?
25 · najeeb said
are these really more violent times? more violent than slavery, colonialism, communism? wasn’t gandhi’s time more violent, less democratic, less free, more socialistic? i mean, we have some bothersome terrorists but they aren’t responsible for many deaths in comparison to other evildoers (lets just hope they don’t get ther hands on wmds). i haven’t bothered to look up the stats, so someone can correct me if i’m wrong, but i believe various indices indicate freedom is on the march, democracy and capitalism is spreading, and the rule of brute force is on the wane.
26 · Manju said
i forgot to add fascism. sorry to quote myself (commenturbation) but the death of the big F shouldn’t be neglected.
One aspect of non-violence that was alluded to in the comments above, and one I’d like to emphasize is the fact that when one (or one’s family, or one’s clan, or one’s nation) is at the receiving end of violence, rationality gives way to emotion all too easily. Today, if I think about the incidents in Mumbai, the gut reaction is to use overwhelming force to kill every one of those ****ers; to find out where Masood Azhar is and bomb the hell out of that place; to find out where the training camps are and destroy them. If I’ve to endanger my own life killing those terrorists, so be it. And if in the process, there is some “collateral damage”, so be it.
The logic from Israel’s point of view in the current (recent?) conflict was to inflict enough damage to the infrastructure and the people in Gaza so as to incentivize the people not to support Hamas; to teach them that if they allow Hamas to launch rockets on Israel, there will be consequences. And in the process, there will be some “collateral damage”, but (the logic goes) we need to achieve our goals.
And the people who got killed in Mumbai, from the point of view of the terrorists, were collateral damage in their fight. The antagonism we feel when “our side” gets the collateral damage, is probably not significantly different from the antagonism that leads someone to blow themselves up.
Don’t get me wrong. I do not suggest pacifism as an appropriate response. But while non-violence may be ineffective and inappropriate as the sole weapon, we should not throw it out of the window. There is a lot that can be learnt from it. It worked when it did because it understood the psyche of the enemy. Proclaiming that the enemy is evil and hence does not need to be, or cannot be understood is self-defeating and ultimately ineffective. Hearing one of MLK’s old speeches on the radio a couple of days back, in the backdrop of the awareness of my own emotional response to 26/11 made me realize how impossibly difficult it is to make an argument for non-violence, when a violent tit-for-tat response appears to be the only reasonable and appropriate course of action, when anything short seems weak and unsatisfying.
But the greatness of MLK and of Gandhi was that they successfully made those arguments in spite of the circumstances. Jalianwalla bagh, was (IMHO) significantly more infuriating an incident than 26/11. And now with the benefit of 90 years of hindsight, we can probably agree that the non-cooperation movement was a more effective way to channel the fury than (say) an assassination of Dyer would have been. At the time, it was probably a significantly less satisfying response than the alternate.
So while in a burst of emotion, a particular response may seem obvious, we should try to think clearly and rationally about the situation. Maybe we will find out that a specific violent response is needed. Or we may find out that it is not likely to be very effective. In either case, the decision should not come from the gut.
“wasn’t gandhi’s time more violent, less democratic, less free, more socialistic?”
yes, but my point is that there have been a setback to non-violent movements recently; both the perpetrators and the oppressed have used violence as the only way to end perceived injustice. Anyone who preaches what Gandhi preached then is considered as a loony liberal who have no clue about what is going on. The same ideas you think are making the world safer – spread of capitalism and so on – have created more violence. The pursuits under the guise of spreading democracy are turning out to be nothing other than maintaining the hegemony over entire populations and resources. Gandhi was more of a socialist than a capitalist – so where do you think he is going to stand in today’s political spectrum?
29 · najeeb said
i’m not sure what conflict your speaking off. but if you mean israeili-palestinisn, gandhi’s methods would be perfect for the palestinians, given the israelis democratic culture, and its a shame (and very telling) their culture never produced an MLK. however the reverse would result in genocide. this is the critical nuance.
.
but yet the first word in yur reply is “yes.” is russia more violent than the days of the Ukrainian famine. china is probably the most bloodiest state of the 20th century, are they bloodier now than under maoism and the cultural rev? is india bloodier than she was during the license raj (well, india was never as bloody as more leftist regimes, but is it more authoritarian at least than say under indira?) are areas more affected by globalization more violent, or less?
I’ll give you that.
“but if you mean israeili-palestinisn, gandhi’s methods would be perfect for the palestinians, given the israelis democratic culture, and its a shame (and very telling) their culture never produced an MLK.”
Yes, I do agree. the other situation i was thinking about was the U.S war on terror – responding to 9/11 has engulfed U.S in a quagmire that has no end in sight. While everyone is quick to admire Gandhi, my point is that, in today’s times anyone with his views would be perceived as a loony liberal from Berkeley. i just feel Gandhi has been reduced to the level of a prophet (with just theoretical relevance) where there are admirers and worshipers, but most people unfortunately find his ideas too outdated to solve today’s problems – like the evangelical christians – they do admire Jesus Christ’s teachings at a theoretical level, but wouldn’t hesitate for a second to kill for their nationalistic agenda. anyways, Amardeep’s recording made by MLK day.
Careful with the broad brush. It is important differentiate between Evangelical Christians and the Christian Right. People have started gravitating towards terms like “Christianist,” “Christist,” or “Dominionist” for just that reason. They do a better job of illustrating the agenda’s chauvanism and also succeed in differentiating between the sensible middle and the people who think being a good Christian means having to hate everything that is not.
I realize it is beneficial for lefty atheists with an axe to grind against traditionalists and religious people to try and claim that all religious folks are the same irrational nutters, but all it ends up doing is alienating people you could be working with.
Very un-Gandhian, I might add.
Yes, Satyagraha was a brilliant strategy to mobilise the masses. But did it win India her freedom?Or did the British decide on freedom as a result of ‘cost of maintaining the empire outweighing its benefits’? And there was bloodshed too, because of the partition.
Also,
…where are the MLKs or MKGs to tell this to the Jihadis (and others who live by the sword)?
Commented earlier but publicizing again considering the topic of this thread
i’m not sure what conflict your speaking off. but if you mean israeili-palestinisn, gandhi’s methods would be perfect for the palestinians, given the israelis democratic culture, and its a shame (and very telling) their culture never produced an MLK. however the reverse would result in genocide. this is the critical nuance.
manju,
The crucial nuance is that billions of military aid dollars and direct war material assistance buy the oppressor a very expensive and tellingly convenient excuse to dismiss satyagraha while years of penury and economic suffocation experienced by the oppressed provide, for you, cowardly cover for eschewing the very same non-violent agenda.
Anyone who asserts with Kristolian confidence that unopposed qassams of Hamas represent an armageddon scenario to Israel should consider the damage and deaths dealt by the ever so ‘carefully targeted’ IDF bombardment in Gaza.
Thanks very much for the link. I may have to go and read the problematic but inspiring Dark Princess: A Romance soon.
“It is important differentiate between Evangelical Christians and the Christian Right.”
I guess you already know the group i meant..
not to derail, but Obama totally gave the first reference to Hindus (that I know of) in a presidential inauguration. “christians and muslims, jews and hindus”..
Forget about Hindus! There was a shout out to non-believers! And to Led Zep, with the levee breaking. And to Creed.
I’m in love. I’m a non-believer, I couldn’t leave ‘er till I died!
9 · A N N A said
People never learn much from history. History has a habit of repeating itself. The struggles of the morals of Gandhi, King, Thoreau, [Jesus] are applicable any day today and it will be applicable in future. I agree, the world has not changed a bit in macro terms. [not to take religiously]
This is great. A few dedis I know asked me yesterday what the big deal about MLK was, I’m going to send them these links!
42 · TheGoriWife said
I remember a desi, who asked me what this
holiday on the company calendar was!. Social Studies mark from HS is not counted for engineering/medical admission in India. He.. he..
36 · Nayagan said
your narrative only works if you decontextualize the conflict from the fact that arab nations initated 4 wars against israel. undemocratic nations mind you that not only practice apartheid but contain cultures responsible for giving the world one of the most fascistic movements since the third reich. and now you have one of the worst totalitarian and repressive states, one that denies the holocaust and openly talks of eliminating israel while seeking nuclear arms, financing hamas.
so, yeah, for practical purposes i don’t suggest the israelis start practicing satyagraha; though it would be great advise for the palestinians. then again, if they possessed a culture where practicing would be feasible, we wouldn’t be in this situation to begin with.
Manju,
how you misread my comment I cannot tell but why you keep conflating the occupied Palestinian population with the governments of surrounding Arab and Persian-dominated states should no longer be a mystery.
45 · Nayagan said
well, i’ve long argued for conflation in regards to islamic terrorism. the hyper contextualiztion misses the big picture, as the recent mumbai bombings demonstrate.