Page 1 of 2
Do we want a peace born out of tolerance? Or do we want a peace that is the means for a much greater purpose in the onward journey of civilisation?
Sometime in October 2001 a laminated and framed letter appeared on the gate of a small park in downtown Manhattan. The author of the letter had lost her husband in the terrorist strike on the World Trade Centre two months earlier. Please, let there be no more killing, pleaded the writer in a letter which had been published by the Chicago Tribune and posted at the park gate by an unknown person.
That widow’s plea echoed the phrase made famous by Gandhi: ‘An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind’.
This conviction must have resonated strongly with others bereaved by the 9/11 attacks, for many joined a campaign to establish a Department of Peace in the US government. Many also rallied together in 2006 to celebrate a hundred years of Satyagraha – since it was on September 11, 1906, that Gandhi first made a public appeal for non-violent civil disobedience.
Gandhi is now a natural inspiration and inevitable symbol for all humanitarian efforts in favour of peace and non-violence across the world. But there is the need to look closely at the underlying challenge that Gandhi posed. Do we want a peace born out of tolerance – perhaps even driven by exhaustion with violence? Or do we want a peace that is the means for a much greater purpose – enabling mutual creativity of diverse races, faiths and nations in the onward journey of civilisation?
The latter is possible only if we do not equate civilisation merely with identity affiliation – that which gives us a sense of ethnic belonging. We could instead experience civilisation as a framework which enables us to define and explore ‘purpose’.
Since the mid-1990s there has been a buzz around the phrase “Clash of Civilisations”. Its proponent, the American academic Samuel P. Huntington, argued that the fundamental source of conflict in the 21st century will not be ideological or economic but cultural. According to Huntington “the fault lines between civilisations will be the battle lines of the future."
When the World Trade Centre was attacked on September 11, 2001, many people in the media and in corridors of power saw it as a validation of Huntington’s predictions.
But what is the relevance of Gandhi’s vision in the face of intractable conflicts within a society and between nations – be it Hindu-Muslim, Christian-Muslim, Shia-Sunni, Iran-US, India-Pakistan. Invoking Gandhi in such situations seems unrealistically idealistic, not merely to those in corridors of power but to many ‘ordinary’ people. Gandhi’s prescriptions are dismissed for being morally and psychologically over-demanding.
And yet, if we view these realities through the lens of the civilisational Gandhi we might find that speculations about a clash of civilisations as cultures are minor disturbances on the surface of global relations.
The dominant discourse defines civilisation as that which defines ‘who you are’ as in where you belong – which tends to seed conflict. But in the framework offered by Gandhi, civilisation is not about tribal or cultural identity – it is that which enables us to process foundational questions: ‘Why am I here?’ ‘What is the purpose of life?’
Amartya Sen, too, has cautioned about the danger of seeing people as belonging to one civilisation or another: “Civilisational partitioning is a pervasively intrusive phenomenon in social analysis, stifling other – richer – ways of seeing people. It lays the foundations for misunderstanding nearly everyone in the world, even before going on to the drumbeats of civilisational clash.”