Non-violence in Iran??

By Amir Khosrow Sheibany
June 13, 2003
Written for Iranian.com

 

The idea of confronting a vicious theocracy founded on the values of the invading Bedouin Arabs with non-violence seems absurd to most Iranians. Not only does non-violent movements bring to mind alien Indian values of satyagraha (1.) as defined by Gandhi against the British 50 years ago, it smells of resignation, weakness and passivity when confronted by a stronger enemy.

After a visit to the Indian sub-continent and discussions with it’s natives on Indian culture and Gandhi’s political struggle against British colonialism, I saw that my previous views couldn't be further from the truth. This article will show that Shahzadeh Reza Pahlavi’s non-violent strategy, inspired by men the likes of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, will actually work quite well in Iran and for Iranian’s aspiring to secularism and popular sovereignty in today's world and under current circumstances.

This strategy, partially articulated in “Winds of Change”, Reza Pahlavi’s book-come-manifesto, will slowly but surely lead to the removal of the mullah/terrorist’s from positions of power and influence in our society. But there is still a general misunderstanding as to what is meant by a “adopting a Robust yet non-violent political strategy" and it is worth while to clear up the confusion. I have made an executive summary of what I understood from of Gandhi’s struggle and his version of non-violence.

Iranian readers with revenge against the mullahs on their mind as well as those without in-depth knowledge of the founding father of modern India will be surprised, I am sure, as to how Gandhi defined his non-violence strategy.

Core Principles

Underlying Gandhi’s concept of non-violence was an ethical belief. Gandhi was highly influenced by tendencies long present in Indian thought (in Hinduism, in Jainism) which condemned not only killing, but hurting, harming, or inflicting suffering on any human being – indeed, any living being.

Gandhi’s satyagraha (1.) must not be thought of as a doctrine of resignation. Gandhi intended to modify the world, not accept it. He intended to oppose evil actively in order to defeat it. He intended to combat injustice. He did not deny conflict, but only the use of violence to resolve it.

Gandhi had many good reasons to refuse violence. Violence, he maintained, never leads to a lasting or stable solution to conflict. Using violence tends to generate further violence, and brutalize both sides. It tends to bring forth authoritarian men, who continue to exercise violence once victory has been reached. Moreover, it implies secrecy and suspicion, falsity, unilateral action, and excessive simplification of truth. In so doing, it perpetuates an old culture and mentality, instead of favouring the development of a better type of person – one more sincere, serene, altruistic, unselfish, free, and most importantly tolerant person.

Gandhi also refused that limited, tactical kind of non–violence which he called non–violence of the weak. That is, he refused recourse to non–violence exclusively as an opportunistic choice, made by those who are unable to fight with any other means, since they would otherwise be defeated. He refused a merely defensive concept of non–violence used in order to limit losses in the face of an oppressor, a stronger enemy. For this reason, as years went by, he used the expression “passive resistance” less and less. In Gandhi’s opinion, non–violence was supposed to become a weapon for the courageous, not a shield for cowards. On more than one occasion, he went so far as to say that violence seemed preferable to a cowardly, resigned acceptance of injustice. Gandhi’s non–violence, then, was a weapon of attack, meant to defeat and convert the enemy by forcing him to face another’s determination to fight and suffer.

True satyagrani, the true non–violent combatants, will fight not only for their own sake, but also for that of their enemies. They will respect their enemies; they will try to understand their motives (because there are many truths) and they will abstain from any form of struggle meant to destroy them or inflict suffering beyond the loss of their unjust privileges. One must fight in order to re-establish truth and justice, not to create new injustice or seek revenge capable of generating new violence.

Gandhi said: “The golden rule of conduct is mutual tolerance, since we shall never all have the same ideas, and we shall never see the Truth except in a fragmentary way, from different angles of vision.”

Where “Exceptions” Admissible?

Like Tolstoy, the other great “holistic pacifist”, Gandhi admitted the existence of exceptional situations in which non-violence was not practicable. In Tolstoy’s view, Christ forbade man to oppose an evil person, or to commit violence in any case, except to save a child in danger. As for Gandhi, in an article of 1926, he formulated the hypothesis of a mad murderer who threatens a community: “In some cases it may even be necessary to shed human blood”, he wrote. Suppose a man were seized by homicidal madness and started running around with a sword in his hand, killing anyone in his path, and no one had the courage to capture him alive. Whoever killed the madman would gain the gratitude of the community, and be considered a charitable man.

Such hypothesis became useful when incidences like that in Amritsar occurred. In that famous case British General Edward Harry Dyer ordered his troops to open fire on a crowd, including women and children attending a political rally. On returning to London General Dryer was presented with a sword studded with precious stones, and engraved with the words: “To the savior of Punjab.” The Morning Post sponsored a donation that raised £30,000 for his benefit. The House of Lords passed a resolution approving his actions, with 129 votes for and only 86 against.

Some observers had noted that the success of Gandhi’s non-violent strategy may only have been possible due to the sentiments of the British people after a brutal world war. It was the Labour Government that pulled out of India, and a Conservative Government, especially under Churchill, would have behaved differently.

Never the less India did obtain it’s independence, the British did concede their unjust privileges. And a new India was born with these words spoken by Nehru: “Long years ago we made a tryst with destiny, and now the time comes when we shall redeem our pledge. At the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom.”

I hope that we shall hear such words in the near future (and I personally hope it is a Pahlavi that says it), with regards to our own country and the struggle to liberate it from a regime of terror of thought and belief. However, I should end with a word of caution to those that believe non-violence is not necessary and that it is quicker and more deeply satisfying to remove this regime by force.

The person - or group - who has confidence in life and enjoys it, whose material means may not be ample but sufficient not to elicit stinginess, will be less eager for the reparation of damage than an anxious, hoarding person who is afraid that he can never make up for his losses. The thirst for revenge may be seen to be less in Iranian's of Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Christian (or Bahai) beliefs. However such Iranian's are far out-numbered today by their 'brothers' for whom even a slight damage will arouse an intense craving for revenge. Our situation today is too serious to permit us to listen to demagogues who are attracted to destruction, or even to political leaders who use only their brains and whose hearts have heardened.

Considering the sickening feeling most Iranian's get when they consider the methods the Khomeini gangs used to seize power, and the manner in which Khatami and his followers are trying to keep themselves in power and keep their unjust privileges, violence and murder does not, and as we have seen, has not amounted to a solid foundation of any regime. It can be argued that all previous regimes of Iran were based on violence, and considering how each was short lived, it is all the more reason to reject violence as the basis of a future regime. This non-violent strategy makes a lot of sense.

The risk of Civil War:

Another reason to avoid violence for us Iranians is the risk of civil war and national disintegration in Iran. No one starts a civil war on purpose. The intentions of the instigators are always noble. Normally "for sake of an idea" rather than to punish crimes, and the desire is a quick and clean victory over an opponent.

The Spanish civil war was around at the same time Gandhi was promoting his non-violent movement. A comparison of the original aims and expectations of each movement and it's actual results, will suggest which path is preferable. The Iranian mind-set and current situation in Iran, and more importantly the clash of civilizations that is brewing in the world, bears too close a resemblance to the situation in Spain just 50 years ago. At that time, the competing worldwide ideologies of the time (Communism, fascism, Western Liberalism) fought for supremacy by supporting their chosen faction. Today we will have, from all around the world, parties that will play their hand in our country and escalate the struggle for power out of the framework of all previously experienced rules and norms. I would urge those who are still not convinced, and prefer a quick and violent resolution to Iran's "mullah problem", to read about the old-style pronunciamiento in Spain and the resulting Spanish civil war that eventually lead to scenes like this:

Comments to author

(1.) Satyagraha, or the “force of truth”, is a term coined by Gandhi by modifying a suggestion by a relative, in order to indicate his theory of non-violence.
Among the key words in Gandhi’s language , the first and foremost is without a doubt Ahimsa, which literally means “non-killing.” An ancient word dating back to the origins of Jainism, ahimsa for Gandhi meant “that you may not offend anybody: you may not harbour an uncharitable thought…To one who follows this doctrine, there is no room for an enemy.”