The Rejection of Violence in Gandhian Ethics of Conflict Resolution

This article is concerned with the problem of Gandhi's rejection of violence in situations of group conflict. Two questions have been asked: (1) On the basis of what arguments did Gandhi reject violence ? (2) Why did he on some occasions support violence ? The answer given to the first question is that Gandhi bases his rejection of violence on two different sorts of arguments. On one hand violence is condemned as morally bad in itself, independently of the consequences to which this rejection may lead. On the other hand violence is also rejected because of the consequences to which it leads. Violence, even used in self-defence, is in full contradiction with the democratic values and is not even able to defend them. Moreover it is never able to bring about accepted solutions of conflicts and it brutalizes man. According to Gandhi, Lenin is completely mistaken in his belief that violence can be used as a means to the achievement of the non-violent society of which he speaks in a famous passage of State and Revolution. For only means which are of the same ethical nature as the end sought can be conducive to its reali zation.Gandhi, however, on four occasions took direct part in war and repeatedly advised others to do the same. Our examination of Gandhi's writings and actions has shown that there are situations in which Gandhi believed it to be our duty to fight. These are the situations in which the alternatives open before us are not violence versus non violence but only direct violence versus indirect violence or violence versus cowardice and fear.The greatness of Gandhi, however, is not accounted for by his rejection of violence alone. His main contribution to the history of political ethics lies in his whole philosophy of conflict and in the non-violent techniques of conducting social conflicts which he devised as an effective and practical substitute for the traditional methods of violence.