Reconciling Nonviolent Principles with Nationalist Power?

Abstract

Both the active and passive support of war constitute a serious violation of the moral principles of the pacifist, let alone those of the committed adherent to a philosophy of nonviolence. Thriving on accentuated differences and hard boundaries that pit an idealized “us” against a demonized “them,” wars have always caused incalculable human suffering culminating in the irreparable loss of life. They have left in their wake lasting psychological scars for the victor and the vanquished alike. Since war, by its nature, represents a highly institutionalized form of conceptual and physical violence, various religious groups wedded to a strong pacifist-nonviolent position have long maintained an unequivocal opposition to war. Some Christian-pacifist denominations such as the Society of Friends hold that participation in even so-called just wars—those fought against external aggression within certain ethical limits—cannot be morally justified. Given Gandhi’s own broad definition of ahimsa, one would expect him to hold similar views on the moral illegitimacy of all wars. At a minimum, one would assume that he would not allow his principles of nonviolence to be compromised by adding his influential voice to those calling for belligerent resolutions of social conflicts.KeywordsCivil DisobedienceMoral CourageBritish RuleWorking CommitteeBritish EmpireThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.