Prophets Of Violence - Prophets Of Peace: Understanding the Roots of Contemporary Political Violence

What they are saying about this book…

Dr. Sohail offers readers a fascinating exploration of ideas concerning freedom and non-violence as represented by prominent twentieth century leaders who he selects in his stimulating book Prophets of Violence, Prophets of Peace. Can humans love God or live according to moral values and yet kill to achieve their version of heaven on earth is a basic question Dr. Sohail asks. He presents Nelson Mandela as a stark example of a leader who accepted the necessity of violence to free black South Africans from the tyranny of apartheid and then earned worldwide respect and admiration later in his life for negotiating peace without violence both with the white government leaders of the country and also with Zulu Chief Butheleze to ensure that South Africa would not be partitioned. The Dalai Lama is offered as an intriguing contrast because he is a respected leader who also embodies his own firm belief in living life in complete peace, inner peace as well as acting without violence in society. Yet Dr. Sohail points out that he may not achieve the free Tibet which Tibetans hope for and have struggled for over so many decades. He hopes that the Dalai Lama will succeed, but asks the difficult question whether it is realistic for a nation to achieve freedom without armed struggle. Dr. Sohail states his own support for harmonious multicultural and multi-religious societies, but he does not simply illustrate leaders’ beliefs in order to conclude with a plan of how to build an ideal society where people respect one another in peace. He discusses the ironies shown by Mohandas Gandhi winning support and renown for leading a peaceful salt march to provide a dramatic example of how non-violence can confront an empire to win freedom from colonialism, and yet how this peaceful icon was unable to resolve his differences with

Muhammad Ali Jinnah so that their success in spurring the independence of India and the creation of Pakistan also resulted in the loss of millions of lives. Martin Luther King serves as a clearer advocate of peace since Dr. Sohail observes that he learned to fight unfair and unjust policies, but that he distinguished those policies from the people who argued for them. Indeed, Dr. Sohail makes clear that he believes that people should be taught not only to empathize with a victim of violence but to be able to go beyond that and to feel compassion for a person who commits violent acts. I have picked just a few amazing examples of the leaders who Dr. Sohail presents to illustrate the crucial dilemma posed by their belief in peace and yet who consider or even accept violence to achieve the goals they believe are worthwhile. Hopefully, a person inspired by Dr. Sohail’s ideas will be able to write a book where peace will have been achieved without violence. Hopefully, that will be the kind of world where women will also be among the leaders to inspire and lead people to peace.

— John Argue, Amnesty International Ontario Coalition for Social Justice

I had the privilege of reading the first draft of Prophets of Violence, Prophets of Peace and also the honor of translating some of the articles from this book into Urdu. The thoughtful and well-organized essays portray the lives and struggles of a number of prominent 20th century intellectuals, revolutionaries and political activists who have left a significant mark on our history. Sohail has presented a wide spectrum of cultures, struggles for freedom, and problems of developing and developed societies. The essays include personalities of international fame like Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Jr., Che Guevara, and the Dalai Lama. Sohail has beautifully brought to

light some realities of which most history students are unaware, and has condensed volumes of history into a few pages describing global rivalries, the impact of imperialism, and mass struggles for freedom and peace. I strongly recommend this book both to serious students of history and to the general public. Prophets of Violence, Prophets of Peace educates the reader in the dynamics of the ongoing struggle for world peace at this difficult point in our history where one imperial power is seeking to become the world’s policeman. If I understand correctly, the book’s message is “peace, not violence”, for which we should strive individually and collectively.

— Rafiq Sultan A Pakistani Intellectual

Dr. Sohail wishes to study a series of prominent men (“prophets”) who struggled for justice in the 20th century. He is interested in the inner lives of these men; he is fascinated by their unusual creativity and boldness. He is unwilling to accept the views of others about these prophets, so he insists on reading their works and drawing his own conclusions. He asks himself what set these men apart from others. He asks himself why some refused to engage in violence while others accepted it—reluctantly in most cases, but sometimes with enthusiasm. Deeply drawn to peace and nonviolence himself, Dr. Sohail nonetheless refuses to condemn all armed struggle. Instead he patiently works his way through the contradictions and ambiguities of the inner lives of his subjects. In doing so he helps us get beyond our own stereotypes and he assists us to release our own creativity. He encourages us to make our own choices as mature people facing the uncertainties of the 21st century.

— Graeme MacQueen Centre for Peace Studies, McMaster University

In bringing together these close to a dozen portraits of 20th century leaders of political change, Dr. Khalid Sohail provides a fascinating glimpse into the factors that led these men into choosing between violent and peaceful approaches. Dr. Sohail is to be congratulated for attempting to use the complex of psychological-political-contextual nexus to shed light on the similarities and differences that led these men—and they are all men—to their choices. In shaping the creative expressions of these agents of change, a rebellious personality deeply committed to societal change emerges as an interesting common factor just as important as the vast dissimilarities of the exigencies of their political contexts. As a sobering thought, peaceful change comes through as isolated islands, and mostly ineffectual, in the otherwise violent sea of political change during the century, When violence was chosen by the leaders, whether or not it was as “the last resort” it is seen by the author as the key question, and the volume provides rich material to shed light on it as well as on the ethics of the “ends-versusmeans” debate—a timely debate in the terrorist-ridden politics of the first decade of the 21st century.

— Dr. Abrar Hassan Head, Educational Policy Division, Director for Education, Organization for Economic C-operation and Development, Paris (Contributed in a personal capacity)

“Prophets of Violence, Prophets of Peace” is a novel approach to understanding the history of the recent past and the psychology of leaders who made history. This book is based upon analyses of lives of leaders from Gandhi to Mandela. It provides an insight not only into the personalities of the individual leaders but also into the wide range of struggle methodology. Mahatma Gandhi on one hand chose the spiritual approach and Che Guevara on the other believed in armed struggle and died in the field for his cause. The subject matter has been chosen carefully

to describe the spectrum in which the struggle could be carried out. Dr. Sohail portrays mass psychology and provides many examples chosen over a wide range of time. Thus it becomes impor-tant reading for students of politics and for aspiring leaders. Prophets is a successful attempt to systematically dissect the personalities of great leaders, an insight into history and social perspective and a discussion of how extraordinary circumstances transformed those leaders. This book will appeal to a wide readership because of the timely nature of its subject combined with ease of reading. I commend Dr. Sohail for writing with such clarity and consistency of approach.

— Tahir M. Qazi MD Clinical Neurophysiology, Neuromuscular Diseases Clinical Assistant Professor and Associate Director of Residency Department of Physical Medicine and Rehab. State University of New York at Buffalo

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE— PROPHETS OF PEACE

—•— A Message from the Publisher In keeping with White Knight Publication’s mandate to bring great works of social value to the reading public across North America, we feel indeed fortunate as a dedicated non-fiction publisher to have been closely involved with this important publication.

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE— PROPHETS OF PEACE Understanding the Roots of Contemporary Political Violence

Dr. K. Sohail

White Knight Publications Toronto, Canada

Copyright © 2005 by Dr. K. Sohail All rights reserved. The use of any part of this publication reproduced, transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, or stored in a retrieval system, without the prior written consent of The Publisher – or, in the case of photocopying or other reprographic copying, a license from the Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency – is an infringement of the copyright law. Published in 2005 by White Knight Books a division of Bill Belfontaine Ltd. Suite 103, One Benvenuto Place, Toronto Ontario Canada M4V 2L1 T. 416-925-6458 F. 416-925-4165 • e-mail [email protected] Ordering information Canada White Knight Book Distribution Services Ltd. c/o Georgetown Terminal Warehouses 34 Armstrong Avenue Georgetown ON, L7G 4R9 T: 905-873-2759 F: 905-873-6170 E-mail: [email protected]

USA Hushion House Publishing Services c/o APG Books 1501 Country Hospital Road Nashville TN USA 37218 T: 888-275-2606 F: 800-510-3650

First printing: August 2005 Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Sohail, K. (Khalid), 1952Prophets of violence, prophets of peace : understanding the why of contemporary political violence / K. Sohail. ISBN 0-9734186-9-9 1. Heads of state. 2. Political activists. 3. Political violence.4. World politics— 20th century. 5. World politics—21st century. I. Title. D412.S64 2004 320'.092'2 C2004-906478-9 Cover and Text Design: Karen Petherick, Intuitive Design International Ltd. Cover Art: Lifestockphotos Illustrations: Michael A. Petherick Printed and Bound in Canada

Dedicated to my friends, my family of the heart and the men and women all over the world

who believe in a peaceful dialogue between different ethnic, religious and cultural communities to resolve conflicts and follow the path of human evolution.

xi

In some ways the 20th century can be called the century of war and bloodshed. The challenge before us, therefore, is to make the next century, a century of dialogue and of peaceful co-existence. ~ Dalai Lama

De-colonization is always a violent phenomenon. ~ Frantz Fanon

Other people are shedding their blood to win the rights we have. ~ Che Guevara

Violence produces something only resembling justice, but it distances people from the possibility of living justly, without violence. ~ Leo Tolstoy

Be the change you wish to see in the world. ~ Mohandas Gandhi

xiii

                           TABLE OF CONTENTS    Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   xvii    Preface       A Bridge Has Been Built . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   .xix                                         PART ONE  Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3       Willing To Die and Willing To Kill For Peace    Martin Luther King, Jr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9      A Symbol Of Justice, Peace And Love    The Dalai Lama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25       A Symbol Of Peace And Compassion    Mohandas K. Gandhi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41       His Dilemmas And Dreams    The Story Of Tagore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55       and Gandhi’s Relationship    Gandhi’s Truth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67       and Militant Non‐Violence    Mohammad Iqbal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79      A Muslim Scholar And Reformer    Mohammad Ali Jinnah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99       The Story Of Gandhi And Jinnah’s Relationship    Kamal Ataturk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   133       A Secular Nationalist    Nelson Mandela . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143      A Violent Peacemaker                                                 xv 

Ho Chi Minh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  177       A Revolutionary Saint    Che Guevara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205       A Symbol Of Armed Struggle Against Imperialism                                    PART TWO  Prophets Of Violence And Peace . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225       Conclusion    Frantz Fanon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   237  and The Psychology Of Violent Revolution    Leo Tolstoy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251  and The Path Of Peace And Love                                  PART THREE  In Search Of Peace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263       An Interview    Liberating Iraq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   312       Poem    Violence, Peace And Green Zone Philosophy . . . 313    Killing In The Name Of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    323    In Search Of A New Prophet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   334       Poem    About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .336    About the Illustrator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338                                                  xvi   

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to acknowledge the following people who have brought so much talent to the development of this book. To my dear friend and colleague, Anne Henderson, I thank her for her various skills in bringing this book along to its conclusion and… To Bette Davis, also a dear friend and fellow worker, who spent countless hours pouring over every word to polish the manuscript to a bright shine and… To Karen Petherick for maintaining such a high standard of design and seeing the work through to its perfect look and… To Bill Belfontaine, publisher of White Knight Publications, a good friend who I can rely on to do the right thing, I thank you all.

xvii

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

— PREFACE — A BRIDGE HAS BEEN BUILT

It was one of Dr. Khalid Sohail’s books that paved the way for our first meeting and my subsequent entry into the Family of the Heart, the creative and intellectually vibrant group that provides time and space for a wide range of people to share their ideas and expressions. Dr. Khalid Sohail’s Prophets of Violence—Prophets of Peace is a timely entrant as the issue of war and peace occupies a central place on the present global stage. The range of leaders that he has presented have not only shaped the history of their own countries, but have transcended their limited geographical boundaries to influence the global political course of the 20th century. As we have crossed the threshold of the new millennium, there is no doubt that their political thoughts, strategies and general philosophy will continue to influence us. What makes this book great is that it showcases a wide spectrum of leaders actively using conflicting ideologies but united under a common understanding—the uplifting of humankind. It is in a sense, a one-stop book for those interested in a glimpse of the 20th-century leaders who shaped the future of the world community of xix

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

nations, politically, philosophically and in some cases, spiritually. Spanning a period from dawn to dusk of the 20th century, it moves us through the lives of political leaders, poets, revolutionaries and spiritual leaders. Dr. Sohail’s book provides something for everyone interested in world polity in general or in any particular continent of our global village. It features Martin Luther King, Jr. for those interested in the civil rights movement in America, Nelson Mandela for those wanting to know more of South Africa, Mahatma Gandhi, Rabindranath Tagore, Iqbal and Mohammad Ali Jinnah for the Indian subcontinent, Che Guevara and Ho Chi Minh for the leftist movements, and the history of tiny Tibet through the personality of the Dalai Lama. Apart from examining leaders like Gandhi, Tagore and Jinnah who occupied the same political and geographical space as isolated entities, Dr. Sohail subjects their relationships to scrutiny, exposing readers to the various facets of each of their personalities. This exercise is particularly useful for all those interested in the Indian subcontinent, as inhabitants of a particular nation are usually acquainted only with leaders of their country. This book, for instance, presents Gandhi and Tagore to Pakistanis while acquainting Indians better with Jinnah and Iqbal. Further, it shows the influence these personalities have had on each other. The inspiration Martin Luther King draws from Gandhi and how he adapts Gandhi’s philosophy to his struggle in the United States is but one example. What is important here is also that the book is xx

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

written in simple language and with lucidity, thereby enabling a layman to access this 20th century human treasure. And last but not least, Dr. Sohail’s insights as a psychotherapist enable him to present these historymakers not as mere distant political figures but as human beings with all of their strengths and weaknesses. V. Radhika Pune, India

xxi

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

P A R T

O N E

—•—

SOCIAL CHANGE FROM PEACE OR VIOLENCE!

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

— FOREWORD — WILLING TO DIE AND WILLING TO KILL FOR PEACE

As in all previous eras, the twentieth century also produced extra-ordinary men and women who dreamed of freedom, justice, love and peace. They struggled most of their lives to transform their dreams into realities and tried their best to make the world a better place. In spite of their high ideals, they shared the vulnerabilities of their fellow human beings. Most had a dark side to their personalities, but rose above it so as to leave a positive legacy for their communities. As their struggles evolved, their personalities transformed into powerful beacons guiding their communities in particular and humanity in general. Over time, their life stories have become a source of inspiration for future generations. As a student of human psychology, I have been fascinated with the personalities of those dreamers. After writing a number of books about writers, philosophers, mystics and artists, I was inspired to focus on people who chose to become involved in social and political movements. As well as being creative, they were also visionaries referred to by some as prophets. 3

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

While I was reviewing their biographies, I realized that many received intense and often contradictory reactions from others. Loved or hated, some were considered “terrorists” while others were perceived as “freedom fighters”. In my opinion those leaders were revolutionaries who dared to challenge oppressive and exploitative traditions and systems in hope of creating peaceful and just societies. To explore the lives of those freedom fighters I titled this book From Gandhi to Mandela, because they were the two political giants who were most respected and even revered by millions of people around the world. While researching their life stories I began to understand why their struggle for peace was intimately connected with the issue of violence. When I finished writing the first chapter about Gandhi, I had an interesting dream in which I met a man whose body was like that of Gandhi, weak and fragile, but who had the head of Mandela, healthy and graceful. He welcomed me and asked me to sit close by. I shook his hand and then kissed it in reverence and asked, “You have struggled all your life and made tremendous sacrifices for your country. What advice do you have for young people who wish to follow in your footsteps?” He smiled like a grandfather and said, “Son, anyone who wants to bring about a profound social and political change in this world and wants to fight for freedom, justice and peace should be willing to die for his cause…” Then he paused to see my reaction. I was smiling in total agreement until he added, “and also willing to kill.” Suddenly 4

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

my attitude changed as I was in total disagreement with him. He realized that I did not believe in violence, murder and killing for any cause. He continued, “Anyone who is not willing to die and not willing to kill for his cause should not embark on this struggle.” After that brief but significant exchange, I woke up sweating. I found the dream very disturbing. Later on, I realized that my dream was quite prophetic, for at that point I had not read the biography of Mandela and other revolutionaries. At that time I did not know that Mandela believed in guerrilla war and was similar in may ways to other guerrilla warriors like Che Guevara and Fidel Castro of Cuba and Ho Chi Minh of Vietnam. They were all willing to die and willing to kill for their cause. They had all crossed a line in their mind and convinced themselves that the end justified the means. To achieve peace they had embraced violence. Reading their biographies, I was becoming aware of the similarities and differences between them and other reformers like Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Dalai Lama who refused to take up arms, believing that the journey was as sacred as the destination and that the means had to be as noble as the end. With much research completed, I decided to use the title Prophets of Violence—Prophets of Peace and focused my attention on the personalities, philosophies and political strategies of these revolutionaries. This became my sincere attempt to share the achievements of these great leaders and explain how their personalities were intertwined with 5

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

the political forces of their times. In spite of their idiosyncrasies and shortcomings as creative human beings, they were symbols of dedication and commitment and made tremendous sacrifices for their dreams and ideals. In the words of Che Guevara, “But the great men who discover brilliant truths live on despite their small faults, and these faults serve only to show us they were human.” Their lives help us contemplate the dynamics of peaceful and sometimes violent struggles for justice and equality. The Dalai Lama, who is respected by millions of people around the world for being a peace lover, noted in his autobiography that when he met Jawaharlal Nehru, he shared with him his dream of liberating Tibet peacefully. Nehru replied, “You say you want independence and in the same breath you say you do not want bloodshed. Impossible!” Some of us believe it is possible to bring about profound social and political changes through peaceful means, while there are others who believe it is not. This book is an attempt to explore those differences and also the choices we all, whether leaders or common citizens, must make in our personal, social and political lives. I hope that reading this book will be as meaningful and exciting for you as creating it was for me. Dr. K. Sohail

6

MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

— MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. — A SYMBOL OF JUSTICE, PEACE AND LOVE

While I was reading the biographies of Martin Luther King, Jr. and contemplating his philosophy of peace, I was repeatedly reminded of Mohandas Gandhi. King was one of the greatest political and spiritual disciples of Gandhi and was known by many as the “Negro Gandhi.” Gandhi’s picture used to hang on the wall of his office and he carried that image in his heart. King introduced the political strategy of non-violence in North America, a strategy that Gandhi had developed in South Africa and used in India to gain freedom from British imperialism. King was extremely successful in his political struggles, and in a few short years brought about extraordinary changes in America, something that other leaders had not been able to accomplish in decades. When he received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964 at the age of 35, he became the youngest person to receive such a prestigious award. He had become a symbol of justice, peace and love all over the world. When I read King’s biographies and speeches, I realized that he had gone through a number of phases in his 39 years of life. King grew up in a family that had a 9

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

well-developed religious and political consciousness. His mother was a kind, gentle and loving woman and his father a committed and dedicated Christian who was also active in the civil rights movement. Growing up, King used to consider church his second home.(Ref 1 p 6) During his childhood and teenage years, King had a number of painful experiences involving racial prejudice that made him very angry. In his autobiography he recalls being slapped when he accidentally stepped on a white man’s toe and the time when he had to stand in a bus for a ninety-mile journey because he was forbidden to sit in an empty seat reserved for whites. He shared his feelings in his autobiography in these words: “We stood up in the aisle for the ninety miles to Atlanta. That night will never leave my memory. It was the angriest I have ever been in my life.”(Ref 1 p 10) King was very perturbed to see that black men and women of his Negro community were humiliated by white people who called them apes and cows. As King studied the history of his community he became aware of the injustices done to his people. King’s biographer Adam Fairclough wrote, “A black corpse dangling from a tree provided the starkest symbol of southern racism. Between 1882 and 1927 whites lynched 3,302 blacks, often in public ceremonies of revolting sadism. Although lynching slowly declined thereafter, it was still frighteningly common when King was growing up.”(Ref 2 p 4) King grew up with parents who never accepted the inhumane segregation and protested strongly all acts of humiliation. King referred to an incident from his child10

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

hood when he was traveling with his father in a car and they were stopped by the police. When the officer called his father “boy”, he sternly told the officer to address him respectfully, otherwise he would not cooperate. The officer, apparently not used to such a strong reaction from a black man, was quite surprised at his father’s response. King, very early in his life, learnt from his parents the lesson of self-respect. King’s parents also taught him the message of Christian love. Whenever he felt angry towards white people and resentful of segregation, his parents told him that Christ had taught them to love their enemy. He was asked to hate the unfair behavior and the unjust policies but love the people, as they were all human beings and children of God. King also developed compassion towards poor white people because many of them suffered just like Negroes. Since King developed class-consciousness alongside race consciousness, he was sympathetic to sufferings of all the oppressed. When King attended university he was introduced to enlightened Christian thinkers like Paul Tillich and Walter Rauschenbusch, who believed in “Christian socialism.”(Ref 2 p 11) He learnt to differentiate between fundamentalist preachers and modern philosophers of Christianity and chose to follow the liberal humanistic tradition of Christianity. King very early in his career learned that people’s day-to-day life experiences were more important than abstract concepts. He was more interested in relieving people’s sufferings and creating a peaceful heaven in this life, than worrying about life after death. 11

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

King studied sociology and received his PhD degree in Systematic Theology from Boston University in 1955.(Ref 3 p 108) In his own practice he combined sociological and religious ideologies, as he was interested in individual as well as social salvation. Following his graduation he, like his father and grandfather, chose to become a minister and preach “social gospel.”(Ref 1 p 19) He found in his father a noble example to follow. After becoming a preacher rather than a doctor or a lawyer, as he had contemplated at different stages of his life, he had the opportunity to reside in the liberal North of the United States, but he and his wife Coretta Scott, who was also passionate about social issues, chose to live in the racially polarized South. They wanted to be part of the social and political struggles of Negroes rather than remaining “detached spectators.”(Ref 1 p 44) King was motivated to serve humanity in general and his Negro community in particular. King started his religious career as a preacher at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama. In his sermons, King encouraged his congregation to get involved in local politics and exhorted them to vote so that they could change the discriminatory laws. Within a short time, because of his knowledge, intelligence and charismatic personality, he became a well-respected and popular religious leader of his community. I found it quite fascinating that King started spreading his message of racial equality in the same states that were the centers of the white supremacist group, the Ku Klux Klan. A turning point came in King’s personal, social and 12

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

political lives on December, 1st 1955, when Rosa Parks, a well respected lady of the Negro community, refused to give up her seat to a white man and was subsequently charged for breaking the segregation laws. The Negro community reacted strongly as their patience was running out. When Rosa was convicted and fined, the entire Negro community joined together to plan a protest and chose King as their leader. By joining that movement King transformed from a religious leader to a political leader. He made passionate speeches urging the black community to boycott the buses. He organized boycotts and strikes throughout the next year, and in that process became an enemy of many whites, as well as the local police and government authorities. Without being fully aware, “the black population of Montgomery—fifty thousand men, women and children—settled in for a long struggle.”(Ref 2 p 25) As the struggle escalated it became violent. There was a time King questioned himself whether his protests and boycotts were in conflict with his Christian ideals. He asked himself the painful questions: “Is the boycott method basically un-Christian?” “Would immoral means justify moral ends?”(Ref 1 p 53) That was a time when after much soul-searching, King convinced himself that “non-cooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good”(Ref 1 p 64) and wholeheartedly embraced Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violence and civil disobedience. I was fascinated to read that when King realized that Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violence and Satyagraha was not resonating with his 13

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

community spiritually and psychologically, he integrated the Christian ideology with Gandhi’s political strategy and created a synthesis of Christian love and Gandhi’s non-violence to make it acceptable. King believed that Gandhi had taken Christ’s message of loving your enemy to the next level and added a social dimension to it. King hoped that the whites would accept reasonable demands. He was appalled at the white authorities who were negative and punitive, and who tried to undermine the black fight for equality and justice. King shared his idealism and naiveté in these words, “I had believed that the privileged would give up their privileges on request” but he had a rude awakening.(Ref 1 p 69) King had also never thought that some of his Negro friends would suggest killing a few whites to give the movement momentum. He wrote, “A member of my church came to me one day and solemnly suggested that it would be to our advantage to ‘kill off’ eight or ten white people. ‘This is the only language these white folks will understand,’ he said.”(Ref 1 p 67) The bus boycott lasted for 381 days and King was impressed to see that 50, 000 Negroes of his community were willing to suffer and sacrifice for their ideals. King had to make his share of sacrifices. His home was bombed and he was put in jail. In those difficult times King’s spiritual beliefs gave him extra strength to endure the hardships. He was also fortunate that he had the support of his loving wife. After his house was bombed, his father-inlaw came to take his daughter Coretta away, but she refused to go, opting instead to stay with King and stand by him in those difficult times. 14

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

Finally the Supreme Court changed the law, thus ending segregation in Montgomery. King felt very proud when he travelled in the first integrated bus. “On December 21, 1956—the first day of integration—King boarded a bus and took a seat near the front. A white man, Glen Smiley, sat next to him.”(Ref 2 p 33) By winning that battle through non-violent means, King gained national stature and became a leader of the nation-wide struggle for the rights of Negroes. In the next few years King travelled to different parts of the country to spread his message of love and peace, as he wanted the long dark night of segregation and injustice to Negroes to end so that they could live in harmony and mutual respect with their white neighbors and countrymen. In January 1957 he was elected president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) with the mandate to integrate Negroes and whites. He held that position for the rest of his life. Many times over the years, King had to appear in court, and was jailed for participating in boycotts and protests; but each time he stated “I was proud of my crime”(Ref 1 p 87) as he was helping Negroes fight for their rights. Altogether, he was jailed thirteen times in different parts of the country. He describes one jail in these words, “This jail is by far the worst I’ve ever been in. It is a dingy, dirty hole with nothing suggestive of civilized society… The companionship of roaches and ants is not at all unusual. In several of the cells there are no mattresses at all. The occupants are compelled to sleep on the bare hard steel.”(Ref 1 p 157) King knew that the 15

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

road to reform did not consist of beds of roses and he faced those hardships gracefully. On one occasion while he was signing books for his admirers, a woman stabbed him and he had to be taken to hospital. After that attack King had to do some more soulsearching. Some of his friends suggested that violence should be met with violence, but King maintained his nonviolent stance. He expressed his ideology in these words, “The believer in nonviolence is the person who will willingly allow himself to be the victim of violence but will never inflict violence upon another. He lives by the conviction that through his suffering and cross bearing, the social situation may be redeemed.”(Ref 1 p 119) During the years of King’s struggle for equality and justice, one of the most painful moments was when his followers were attacked by police on the orders of the Director of Public Safety. His followers did not respond to violence with violence, instead following Gandhi’s nonviolent methods, which made King very proud. He wrote, “Bull Connor’s men stood facing the marchers. The marchers, many of them on their knees, ready to pit nothing but the power of their bodies and souls against Connor’s police dogs, clubs, and fire hoses, stared back, unafraid and unmoving. Slowly the Negroes stood up and began to advance. Connor’s men, as though hypnotized, fell back, their hoses sagging uselessly in their hands while several hundred Negroes marched past them, without further interference, and held their prayer meeting as planned. I felt there, for the first time, the pride and power of nonvi16

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

olence.”(Ref 1 p 211) That was the day King felt like the loyal disciple of Mohandas Gandhi, the brown saint of India. In 1963 King led a march in Washington, a march so overwhelming and powerful that it was considered “the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.”(Ref 1 p 223) It was during that march that King delivered his historic speech, “I Have a Dream”, in which he proclaimed, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”(Ref 3 p 95) One of the highlights of King’s life was when he was invited by President Johnson to celebrate the signing of the Civil Rights Act. “I had the good fortune of standing there with President Johnson when he signed that bill. Certainly one of the things that I will hold among my most cherished possessions is the pen that President Johnson used to sign the bill.”(Ref 1 p 243) That moment was special not only for King but for all human rights activists. “When President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act on July 2, 1964, the civil rights movement could celebrate a major victory.”(Ref 2 p 95) After King received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964, he became an international figure and was invited by many communities and countries to share his message. One of the highlights of King’s travels was when he and his wife Coretta travelled to India and visited the places where his guru Gandhi used to live and work. King was warmly received by Indians from all walks of life. He was surprised 17

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

to learn that Indian newspapers had covered the strike in Montgomery more extensively than many white newspapers in America. King also realized that Negroes in America were not much different than the Untouchables of India. By the time King returned to America he had become an international leader fighting for the rights of all oppressed people of the world. He was against imperialism and colonialism and he considered the struggles of Negroes in America as domestic and “internal colonialism”.(Ref 2 p 132) He opposed all forms of injustice, be they racial, ethnic, gender or religious. It was tragic that in the last few years of his life King’s peaceful personality, political ideology and philosophy were continually challenged by many whites as well as Negroes. He was frequently attacked by many groups including the Ku Klux Klan who hated him with a passion and were instrumental in attacking his family, home and church. While the whole world was honoring him for winning the Nobel Peace Prize, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover publicly attacked him as “the most notorious liar in America.”(Ref 2 p 99) They feared that King was on the road to becoming a black Messiah. But the group that concerned King most was his fellow Negroes who wanted to embrace violence and start an armed struggle. They violently attacked King’s peaceful ideology and considered his philosophy unrealistic and idealistic. King had to face the criticisms of Malcolm X, Stokley Carmichael and other followers of the Black 18

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

Power Movement, as well as Frantz Fanon, a black psychiatrist who had become an integral part of the Algerian revolutionary movement and had inspired millions of black people with his book The Wretched of the Earth. Followers of the Black Power Movement suggested “substituting the word ‘black’ for ‘Negro.’”(Ref 2 p 117) They disagreed with King on the inclusion of whites in the struggle. Many of them settled in Africa, disillusioned and disappointed. They sought to bring about revolution with bullets rather than ballots. Malcolm X was very suspicious of whites, believing that blacks, like black coffee, should not be diluted and adulterated by white cream. Malcolm X blamed King for encouraging Negroes to “suffer peacefully”, while King believed that Malcolm X was “a victim of despair…” as he could not overcome the tragedies of his personal life that included “the rape of his grandmother and murder of his father.”(Ref 1 p 268) King strongly disagreed with Malcolm X’s philosophy but was sympathetic to his emotional struggles. King’s philosophy and ideals were different than those of the followers of Black Power. King subscribed to the ideals of Leo Tolstoy and Mohandas Gandhi rather than those of Frantz Fanon. He wanted to achieve social change by peaceful rather than violent means. There were many who believed King was no longer in tune with the social and political climate, which had become violent. They said, “When churches were being bombed and civil rights workers murdered, King’s pronouncements on love came to appear patronizing, naïve, and grotesquely inappro19

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

priate.”(Ref 2 p 129) For others they might be inappropriate but for King his messages of peace and love were part of his ideals and his dreams, and for his dreams he was willing to sacrifice everything he had, even his life. King was dedicated to democratic and non-violent means. A forgiving man, he did not believe in revenge and continuation of the cycle of violence. He once stated, “The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind.”(Ref 3 p 73) It was ironic that King, like his leader Gandhi, was subjected to brutal violence. Both prophets of peace died a violent death at the hands of their assassins. The day before his death King had mentioned the unfulfilled dreams of Gandhi in these words, “Life is a continual story of shattered dreams. Mahatma Gandhi labored for years and years for the independence of his people. But Gandhi had to face the fact that he was assassinated and died with a broken heart, because that nation that he wanted to unite ended up being divided between India and Pakistan as a result of the conflict between the Hindus and the Moslems.”(Ref 1 p 356) King and Gandhi both “rejected the divide between religion and politics”(Ref 2 p 7) not fully realizing that it was a dangerous combination. After King’s assassination on April 4th, 1968 by James Earl Ray, strong waves of grief and violence swept the whole country.(Ref 3 p 118) While millions of King’s admirers and disciples were silently grieving and wearing black, there were some whites in the American government and FBI who were happy. “And in the FBI’s Atlanta office, one agent could hardly contain his glee as the fist of one hand 20

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

hit the palm of another: ‘They finally got the s.o.b.’”(Ref 2 p 124) Thousands of young Negroes came out into the streets and “fought with the police and smashed shop windows, burning and looting…when the revolt subsided…forty-six people were dead, about thirty-five thousand injured, and more than twenty thousand in jail.”(Ref 2 p 124) King’s dream of peace temporarily turned into a violent nightmare. For many black militants, King’s assassination was the last nail in the coffin of non-violence. Stokley Carmichael stated, “When white America killed Dr. King she opened the eyes of every black man in the country… There is no longer need for any intellectual discussion. Black people know that they have to get guns.”(Ref 2 p 128) In the midst of mixed reactions, King’s contributions were re-evaluated after his death and ultimately his birthday was declared a national holiday. King’s biographer Adam Fairclough wrote, “His assassination transferred him into a martyr, and in 1985 [the American] Congress added his birthday to the list of national holidays, placing King in the same league as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.”(Ref 2 p 1) Today, millions of men and women inside and outside America hold King in high esteem and are proud of his contributions to the cause of blacks in particular, and to that of all the oppressed of the world.

21

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

Note: In this essay I used the expression Negro because that was the term King used in his writings and speeches. I am aware that these days it is more politically correct to use the word Black.

REFERENCES Ref. 1 King, Martin Luther Jr. The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr. Edited by Clayborne Carson. New York: Warner Books, 1998. Ref. 2 Fairclough, Adam. Martin Luther King, Jr. USA: The University of Georgia Press, 1995. Ref. 3 King, Coretta Scott. The Words of Martin Luther King, Jr. New York: Newmarket Press, 1968 (p 73).

22

THE DALAI LAMA

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

— THE DALAI LAMA — A SYMBOL OF PEACE AND COMPASSION

The Dalai Lama, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989, has been living in exile in India since 1959, as his life was in danger in his homeland, Tibet. Reading the Dalai Lama’s autobiography and his speeches over the decades has been quite fascinating for me. They not only gave me insight into how Tibetans chose their spiritual-political leader but also into the struggle Tibetans went through when they were attacked by the troops of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army under the leadership of Chairman Mao and Chou-en-Lai. Through-out his many years of exile, the Dalai Lama’s life remains intricately connected with the lives of six million Tibetans. Sadly, despite all the appeals, it appears unlikely that he will ever return to his homeland and lead a peaceful life as the spiritual leader of his people. It is feared that with increasing Chinese immigration into Tibet, a time may come when Tibetans will be a minority in their own country and merely a tourist attraction for the rest of the world. The Dalai Lama had always remained a peace-loving leader and has never given his blessing to violence. Some 25

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

Tibetans have admired his peaceful struggle, while others have become part of an armed struggle and have joined the ranks of freedom fighters, believing that the only way for Tibet to become free is to overthrow the Chinese occupation by force. They are afraid that the Dalai Lama’s policy of non-aggression might lead to the extinction of the whole Tibetan nation. The Dalai Lama never agreed with a philosophy of violence. Being a Buddhist monk he respects life and cannot give blessing to the sacrifice of any human life, even that of his enemy. Whether Tibet will ever achieve freedom and independence, and if so, through the peaceful means of the Dalai Lama or the armed struggle of the freedom fighters, is still an open question. Whether the ends justify the means is a profound political and philosophical question for all those who value freedom, independence, justice and peace. I found it fascinating to read that the Dalai Lama was chosen as the spiritual and political leader of the nation at the age of three, as he was believed to be the re-incarnation of the 13th Dalai Lama. The Regent of Tibet, who was also a monk, had had a dream following which he sent out a search team, which found the home and identified the child. They returned to their monastery and brought back some of the belongings of the deceased Dalai Lama which they showed to the child. As the three-year-old child saw each item, he said, “It is mine.” Rather than interpreting it that the child wanted to have those items, the spiritual research team concluded that he possessed the soul of the previous Dalai Lama and recognized his own belongings. 26

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

His parents were told the good news of the reincarnation, and after being showered with gifts, surrendered their child to his destiny. The Dalai Lama writes in his autobiography how traumatic it was for a small child to be removed not only from his natural environment but also from his loving parents and family. It is interesting to note that the parents did not object to such a separation from their beloved child. Because of their faith they might even have even felt blessed, believing that they had given birth to a god-king, the Dalai Lama. The young child received the best of education from masters of the Buddhist tradition. He not only learnt to meditate but also studied astrology, medicine and philosophy. The Dalai Lama was educated towards a doctorate in Buddhist philosophy and lifestyle. Yet in spite of his excellent education and relative comfort, he felt alone and lonely, as he was not part of a regular school system where he could interact with other children. As the Dalai Lama was being groomed to become the head of state, in his neighboring country China, Mao Tse Tung was waging a revolution. After his victory Chairman Mao decided to “liberate” Tibet from its imperialist powers, and in 1951, sent his army to attack that peaceful country. The Dalai Lama, as a shy and politically naïve teenager, had to face the responsibilities of leading his people and defending his country against the Communist invasion. He was aware that being Buddhists, Tibetans disliked war and bloodshed. The worst profession for Buddhists was that of 27

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

soldier, as in Tibet, soldiers were perceived as “butchers.” They did not believe in taking human life, which they considered to be sacred. The Dalai Lama realized that he had an army of only a few thousand and stood no chance of matching the onslaught of the Chinese army that was far superior in numbers and weapons. He wrote, “Tibet was in grave danger for our army mustered no more than 8500 officers and men. It would be no match for the recently victorious People’s Liberation Army (PLA).”(Ref 1 p 51) He was shocked to discover that some Chinese officials had bribed his brother to ask him to surrender, and if he refused, to kill him. He could not believe that the Chinese authorities would contemplate asking one brother to kill the other. He wrote, “They had a plan whereby they would set him [the Dalai Lama’s brother] free to go to Lhasa if he could prevail on me to accept Chinese rule. If I resisted, he was to kill me. They would then reward him. That was a strange proposal. First of all, the idea of killing any living creature is anathema to Buddhists. So the suggestion that he might actually assassinate the Dalai Lama for personal gain showed how little understanding the Chinese had of the Tibetan character.”(Ref 1 p 55) The Dalai Lama attempted to hold peaceful negotiations with the Chinese authorities and tried to impress upon them that Tibetans were living happily within their own culture and tradition and did not need “liberation.” The Chinese replied that they wanted to reform Tibet and get rid of all of the evils of imperialism and religion. The Dalai Lama went to Peking and met with Chairman Mao to 28

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

plead his case. Mao was quite friendly and courteous and reassured him that he need not worry about his people, as the Chinese were only trying to make Tibetans better people by helping them become modern and industrialized. He promised the Dalai Lama that there would be no reforms for six years. The Dalai Lama believed Mao, never realizing how empty was that promise. The forces of the revolution, like a storm, were gathering over the peaceful Tibetans. Mao attempted to convince the Dalai Lama that Buddhism and Communism were not incompatible, as Buddha also believed in an “anti-caste, anti-corruption and anti-exploitation” philosophy.(Ref 1 p 91) The Dalai Lama was so naïve and innocent as a teenager that he became a member of the Communist Party, hoping that he would find some common grounds between Buddhism and Communism. But as time passed, the atrocities of the Chinese Communist Party increased and Tibetans started to suffer. As an ever-increasing number of Chinese soldiers moved into Tibet, food supplies for the local people dwindled. The Dalai Lama stated, “I now see the first five or six weeks after my return to Lhasa from Dromo as a honeymoon period. It ended abruptly on 26 October 1951, when 3000 troops of the Chinese 18th Route Army entered Lhasa…following the arrival of the last consignment of 20,000 troops, a serious food shortage was developing.”(Ref 1 p 73) With the passage of time, conditions worsened and finally it reached a stage where the Chinese army was responsible for “famine and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Tibetans from starvation.”(Ref 1 p 80) 29

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

While The Dalai Lama was trying peaceful means to stop the onslaught of Communism, his brother was meeting with freedom fighters that were organizing guerrilla warfare to fight with the Chinese Communists for their freedom. As Communist Party followers confronted Tibetan guerrillas, blood began to spill. Initially, the guerrilla fighters had some successes, but the Chinese army soon overcame them. The Dalai Lama shares his feelings in these words, “The Khampa/Amdowa freedom-fighters’ alliance began to have considerable success. By May/June, numerous sections of the Chinese military road had been destroyed along with a great many bridges. As a result, the PLA drafted in 40,000 troop reinforcements. This is exactly what I feared. No matter how successful the resistance, the Chinese would overcome it in the end by sheer force of numbers and superior firepower. But I could not have predicted the aerial bombing of the monastery at Lithang in Kham. When I heard of it, I cried. I could not believe that human beings were capable of such cruelty to each other.”(Ref 1 p 110) Over the years the guerrilla war escalated, with more and more ordinary Tibetans joining the freedom fighters. They harassed the Chinese army with their ambushes and were often successful in disrupting their supply convoys. During one such ambush “the Chinese panicked and started shooting wildly in all directions, killing large numbers of their own troops. Meanwhile the horsemen, having escaped across the river, turned back and, approaching from a different direction, attacked again from the flank 30

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

before disappearing into the hills. I was very moved by their bravery.”(Ref 1 p 127) Realizing that his peaceful negotiations with Chinese authorities were failing, the Dalai Lama could no longer stand the violence that was causing death to his people and destruction to his beloved country. He decided to leave Tibet. He had met with Jawaharlal Nehru, the Prime Minister of India during his visit to India, and had asked for help. In the beginning Nehru had told him that he could not help him because India had signed an agreement with China not to interfere with the internal political battles of each other’s country. Unfortunately, the Chinese authorities presented the crisis of Tibet as their internal problem. Although Tibet had gained independence in 1912, Chinese were promoting the idea in the media that Tibetans were returning to their “motherland.” In 1959, after a decade of failed negotiations between the Dalai Lama and Chinese authorities, Tibetan freedom fighters escalated their attacks on the Chinese. Subsequently, conditions in Tibet deteriorated to the point where the Dalai Lama lost all hope of any peaceful resolution. Fearing that his presence in Tibet would make the confrontation worse, resulting in more deaths and suffering, he decided to leave the country secretly. But even after he left Tibet, there was no decline in the bloodshed. He wrote, “Just over forty-eight hours after my departure, the Chinese had begun to shell the Norbulingka and to machine-gun the defenseless crowd, which was still in place. My worst fears had come true. I realized that it 31

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

would be impossible to negotiate with people who behaved in this cruel and criminal fashion.”(Ref 1 p 141) Just before he and his followers reached the border with India, the Dalai Lama took a bold step of announcing “the formation of my own Government, the only legally constituted authority in the land.”(Ref 1 p 141) He sent his representatives ahead to tell the Indian government of the tragedy unfolding in Tibet. The Indians were sympathetic to their cause and offered them asylum. The Dalai Lama wrote, “… I was not safe anywhere in Tibet…the Indian government had signaled its willingness to receive me. I was very relieved to hear that, as I had not wanted to set foot in India without permission.”(Ref 1 p 142) He was not only received cordially by the Indian government but also welcomed with affection, respect and reverence by the Indian populace. “Thousands upon thousands of people turned out and shouted their welcome, ‘Dalai Lama Ki jai! Dalai Lama Zinda—bad’.” (Hail to the Dalai Lama! Long Live the Dalai Lama!) Since 1959, the Dalai Lama’s Tibetan government and nearly a hundred thousand Tibetan refugees have been welcomed and supported by all Indian Prime Ministers including Jawaharlal Nehru, Lal Bahadar Shastri and Indira Gandhi. They have provided the exiled Tibetans with shelter, education and a democratic environment in which to live according to their religion and culture. To survive, the Dalai Lama had to sell all his royal assets. “At first I had it in mind to sell the treasure directly to the Indian government, a plan proposed by Nehru himself. But my advisers 32

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

were adamant that the treasure should be sold on the open market. They were certain we could get more for it that way. So it was finally disposed of in Calcutta, where it fetched what seemed to me an enormous sum, equivalent then to $8 million.”(Ref 1 p 168) Since 1959, the Dalai Lama and his followers have been hoping that with international pressure they would be allowed to return to Tibet, to govern and serve their country. But in spite of sympathy from different parts of the world, there is little likelihood that the Dalai Lama and his followers will be allowed to return to Tibet in the foreseeable future. While the Dalai Lama is struggling abroad there are also people inside Tibet seeking freedom and independence. They have chosen different paths to the same destination. Because of their different philosophies of political struggle, one group believes in peaceful means and the other in armed struggle. While reading about the political problems of Tibet I was intrigued by the role that America and the CIA played in the guerrilla war. The Dalai Lama notes, “The other episode concerned the guerrillas, trained and equipped by the CIA, who continued their struggle to regain Tibetan freedom by violent means…the guerrillas harassed the Chinese…87,000 deaths in Lhasa during the period March 1959 to September 1960… In the end, the Americans discontinued their backing for the guerrillas following their recognition of the Chinese Government in the 1970s—which indicates that their assistance had been a reflection of their anti-communist policies rather than 33

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

genuine support for the restoration of Tibetan independence.”(Ref 1 p 192) On one hand the Dalai Lama was impressed with the courage and determination of the fighters who were willing to sacrifice their lives for freedom and independence; but on the other hand such violence was in conflict with his philosophy of peace and finding resolution through dialogue. For a time he kept quiet, but eventually he felt a moral duty to request these freedom fighters to put down their weapons and stop the armed struggle. He did not want any more bloodshed, even of his enemy. “Although I had always admired the determination of the guerrillas, I had never been in favor of their activities and now I realized that I must intervene. I knew that the only way I could hope to make an impression on them was by making a personal appeal…”(Ref 1 p 193) The Dalai Lama was in India and could not meet them personally, so he sent them a message asking them to “lay down their arms and themselves settle peacefully…” He later learned that “many of the men felt that they had been betrayed…a few of their leaders actually cut their own throats rather than leave. I was distraught to hear this. Naturally, I had had mixed feelings about appealing to the freedom fighters. It seemed wrong in a way to challenge such courage, such loyalty and such love for Tibet, though I knew in my heart that it was the right thing to do.”(Ref 1 p 193) Reading the story of the Tibetan freedom fighters, it became clear to me that although the Dalai Lama continues his pressure on the Chinese government through world 34

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

opinion, there are others who believe that to deal with the Communist party they should fight fire with fire and follow Chairman Mao’s philosophy that “revolution can only come from the barrel of the gun.” The Dalai Lama believes in gaining peaceful ends by peaceful means. His speeches remind one of the speeches of Indian Chief Seattle and Black Elk, who also believed in peaceful means for Native Indians to preserve their integrity and culture. But Tibetans, like Native Indians, are also worried about their future survival and afraid that their race may become extinct. Is it better to pursue peaceful means and face possible extinction, or fight for one’s culture and future by armed struggle? It is one of the most profound questions for any nation in particular and humanity in general. In the last four decades there have been more and more people who are aware of the tragedies and struggles of Tibetans but are still unsure of their future. The Dalai Lama has been traveling around the world pleading the case of 6 million Tibetans. In his speech in America in 1995, he stated, “An estimated 1.2 million Tibetans have died as a result of the Chinese occupation, and more than six thousand monasteries, temples, forts and other historic landmarks, the repository of our ancient civilization, have been destroyed, desecrated and plundered.”(Ref 3) Reading the Dalai Lama’s autobiography and his speeches, one is strongly impressed with his compassion for his enemies as well as his philosophy of peace. The Dalai Lama is opposed to violence and regards his enemies as fellow human beings. He hopes and prays that they will 35

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

realize what suffering and destruction they are causing by their actions, and cease their aggression. He also believes that the oppressed must rise above feelings of anger, resentment, bitterness and revenge and be compassionate towards their enemies. That is the essence of his Buddhist philosophy and tradition. He prays for the same Chinese who call him “A Wolf in Monk’s Robes.” He wrote, “To engender altruism, or compassion, in myself, I practice certain mental exercises which promote love towards all sentient beings, including especially my so-called enemies. For example, I remind myself that it is the actions of human beings rather than human beings themselves that make them my enemy. Given a change of behavior, that same person can easily become a good friend.”(Ref 1 p 207) For the Dalai Lama, peace is more than absence of war. He hopes that people from different religions and secular traditions will adopt a lifestyle that will “help human beings live at peace with themselves, with each other and with the environment.” In his eyes, inner and outer peace, emotional and social peace, spiritual and political peace are all inter-related. For our evolution as human beings we cannot choose one and ignore the other. As far as the future of Tibet is concerned, the Dalai Lama dreams of a day when he and 100,000 other refugees will return to Tibet and live peacefully. He would like to declare Tibet a land of Ahisma, a land of peace and non-violence, with no army on the borders with her neighbors. In his 1989 Nobel Prize speech he stated that he would like to convert “the entire Tibetan plateau into 36

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

a Zone of Ahisma, a sanctuary of peace and non-violence where human beings and nature can live in peace and harmony.”(Ref 2) The Dalai Lama is hoping that human beings will learn from their past mistakes and experiences and find constructive ways to resolve personal, social, political and international conflicts. In his speech in Prague in 1997 he said, “In some ways the 20th century can be called the century of war and bloodshed. The challenge before us, therefore, is to make the next century, a century of dialogue and of peaceful co-existence.”(Ref 4) It is obvious that the Dalai Lama wants a peaceful resolution of the problem of Tibet and all peace-loving people admire his courage and determination. But the final question is: Is it realistic for a nation to win freedom without armed struggle? Nehru once made a profound statement to the Dalai Lama. He said, “You say you want independence and in the same breath you say you do not want bloodshed. Impossible!”(Ref 1 p 147) On the other hand if peace is won only through much bloodshed, is it worth it? Revolutionaries like Mandela and Castro say yes, while peace loving people like the Dalai Lama and Desmond Tutu cannot concur. Since the beginning of his exile, the Dalai Lama has delivered a speech on every 10th of March, the anniversary of the Tibetan National Uprising. Forty-one years later, in 2000, he stated that “the worldwide support for our cause is increasing.”(Ref 5) Let us hope that one day the Dalai Lama and his peace-loving followers will meet their freedom fighter 37

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

brothers and sisters in Lhasa to celebrate their independence, in the same way Desmond Tutu of South Africa, who believed in peaceful means, embraced freedom fighter Nelson Mandela who believed in armed struggle, as they celebrated their freedom.

REFERENCES Ref. 1 The Dalai Lama. Freedom In Exile. Canada: Harper Perennial, 1990. Ref. 2 His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s Nobel Prize acceptance speech, University Aula, Oslo, 10 December 1989. Ref. 3 Statement by His Holiness the X1V The Dalai Lama on His Visit to the United States, September 1995. Ref. 4 Speech of His Holiness the Dalai Lama at the “Forum 2000” Conference Prague, Czech Republic, 3-7 September 1997. Ref. 5 Statement of His Holiness the Dalai Lama on the 41st Anniversary of Tibetan National Uprising Day, March 10, 2000.

38

MOHANDAS K. GANDHI

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

— GANDHI — HIS DILEMMAS AND DREAMS

It is not easy to discuss Gandhi’s life and philosophy in an objective way as he has become a symbol of peace and nonviolence and has inspired thousands of intellectuals and peace activists. One sees his statues all around the world created and erected by his admirers and disciples. I believe that Mohandas Gandhi, Mohammad Iqbal, Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Rabindranath Tagore were some of the greatest minds of the 20th century, for they shaped the intellectual, political and spiritual lives of the East. I first discovered Gandhi’s autobiography in 1976 in Iran when I was working in a children’s hospital in Hamadan. From the window of my clinic, I could see the tomb of the famous Muslim scholar Avicenna. On a visit to the tomb, I discovered a small library, where to my surprise, I found the autobiography of Mohandas Gandhi. I immediately began to read his incredible life story. As I gained a better understanding of Gandhi’s life, I found some aspects of his personality and life-style confusing, even disturbing. In spite of his message of peace and non-violence, Gandhi was not at peace with himself and that caused him a great deal of suffering, partly 41

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

because of his family and social circumstances and partly because of his pervasive guilt. Although he tried very hard to resolve the conflicts between his emotional, social, political and spiritual lives, I do not believe that he was completely successful. At that time I was not a serious student of human psychology, and I believed that great men and women had fewer conflicts than ordinary people. Over the years I have realized that great people not only have greater conflicts but they are also able to perform great works in spite of their conflicts. For ordinary people their conflicts become obstacles, but for great people their personal and social conflicts become sources of inspiration. Reading Gandhi’s autobiography years later, I was quite impressed by his honesty. In far too few autobiographies does the writer reveal as openly and honestly as Gandhi the dark side of his personality and lifestyle. Many I encountered were so biased and prejudiced that I felt a need to read other works by relatives, friends, critics and rivals to get a true picture of that person. But Gandhi has tried his best to share the views of his wife, children, friends and colleagues while revealing his own insights into his struggles. His autobiography is living proof that someone can achieve so much and make such profound contributions to society in spite of earlier limitations and insecurities. Throughout his life, Gandhi struggled with the conflicts between different aspects of his personality, between traditions and dreams, between religious values and political ideals. He was much attached to his traditions, parents, 42

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

caste, religion and culture. He had strongly internalized family values and acted on them even after the death of his parents. As a child he tried to be a “good little boy” and never did all those things that “bad boys do.” Even after he became an adult he remained an ideal son of his mother and motherland, and to this day millions of Asians are proud of his character and contributions. Part of Gandhi’s personality yearned to rebel against certain well-established traditions and to explore new values and principles; yet whenever he rebelled or broke family, cultural and religious traditions, he felt guilty and remorseful. Gandhi sought to achieve many goals in his life, some of which were not compatible with others. On one hand he wanted to be a mystic and discover his own truth and on the other hand, he felt the urge to become a reformer and change his community. We all know that such goals are not easy to achieve simultaneously. Thus he had to walk a tightrope all his life. Gandhi describes in his autobiography how shy and withdrawn he was as a child, without much self-confidence. He was more interested in books than people, and was reluctant to join any group sports, as he was afraid of being ridiculed by other children. He was very obedient and respectful to his parents and teachers, as he did not want to hurt their feelings. To be an ideal son and to acquire his parents’ blessings, he sacrificed his desires and dreams. As a child he liked stories that were very idealistic and he identified with the characters that made a personal sacrifice for the benefit of others. Dedicating oneself to 43

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

service and sacrificing one’s feelings and wishes for others became major themes in his life. Gandhi was also influenced by Jainism, which like Catholicism, promoted abstinence and sacrifice as a path to spiritual salvation. It is interesting that rather than following a more liberal tradition of Hindu religion, he chose to walk the most conservative path of Jain mythology. In Gandhi’s autobiography, there appear a number of situations in which Gandhi found himself in conflict. FAMILY DILEMMA When Gandhi was only thirteen, his family arranged a marriage for him, which he called a child marriage, a marriage between two innocent children. He was very critical of his parents and other family members for taking this step. “In doing so there was no thought of our welfare, much less our wishes. It was purely a question of their own convenience and economy.”(Ref 1) It is obvious that Gandhi never had any opportunity to date, meet different young girls and experiment with his sexuality as modern Western teenagers do. Gandhi was also very dedicated to his parents. He spent much of his time caring for his ailing father and as his father’s health deteriorated, his commitment increased. As Gandhi reached puberty he wanted regular sexual encounters with his wife, but once again he found himself in a conflict. On one hand he wanted to nurse his ailing father and on the other hand he wanted to spend private time with his wife. Reflecting upon that period in his life, 44

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

Gandhi recalls that even though he was physically near his father, mentally he was with his wife. And finally one evening when he was making love to his wife, his father died in the next room. Gandhi was devastated. He felt that he should have been with his father rather than with his wife. He wrote, “…if animal passion had not blinded me, I should have been spared the torture of separation from my father during his last moments” and mentions “shame of my carnal desire even at the critical hour of my father’s death.”(Ref 1) Gandhi could not accept that it was quite normal and natural for a young man to spend some time with his wife. But his conscience remained full of shame, remorse and guilt. That significant experience set the stage for an ongoing conflict between Gandhi’s sexuality and his morality, which bothered him greatly for the rest of his life. Finally when he could not resolve that conflict and enjoy sex wholeheartedly, he found refuge in celibacy and stopped sleeping with his wife. Gandhi, like many Hindu sadhus and Christian saints, believed that sexuality was an obstacle to the discovery of spiritual enlightenment. He wrote, “It took me long to get free from the shackles of lust, and I had to pass through many ordeals before I could overcome it.”(Ref 1) COMMUNITY DILEMMA Gandhi belonged to a community that was very traditional, conservative and religious. When his uncle suggested that he should go to England to become a lawyer, his community strongly opposed him. They believed that if 45

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

Gandhi went to England, he would leave his religious traditions behind and adopt European values and lifestyle. Gandhi, worried that his mother would not give him her blessing to go, promised that he would abstain from alcohol, meat and women. He wrote, “Becharji Swami…a Jain monk…came to my help, and said, ‘I shall get the boy solemnly to take the three vows, and then he can be allowed to go.’ He administered the oath and I vowed not to touch wine, woman and meat. This done, my mother gave her permission.”(Ref 1) Making such a vow reflects Gandhi’s commitment to his family and cultural values. Even getting his mother’s blessing did not stop his community from punishing him. The community leader, the Sheth, was angry. Gandhi wrote, “He swore at me. He pronounced his order. ‘This boy shall be treated as an outcast from today. Whoever helps him or goes to see him off at the dock shall be punished…’” CULTURAL DILEMMA When Gandhi arrived in England, his friends and neighbors offered him meat and alcohol, which he refused. He had made a vow to his mother and as an honest, obedient and dedicated son he was going to respect that vow. There were times in England when he literally starved and suffered but he would not break his vow. Whenever he was challenged and asked to explain why he did not eat meat, he stated, “I have solemnly promised to my mother not to touch meat, and therefore I cannot think of taking it.”(Ref 1) While in England Gandhi discovered a book written by 46

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

vegetarians and after reading that book he stated that he consciously chose the path of vegetarianism. He wrote, “I read Salt’s Plea for Vegetarianism from cover to cover and was very much impressed by it. From the date of reading this book I may claim to have become a vegetarian by choice. I blessed the day on which I had taken the vow before my mother.”(Ref 1) To me that statement seems like a rationalization. Gandhi’s relationship with meat, like his relationship with his mother, was far more emotional than rational, more sentimental than logical. He not only adopted a vegetarian lifestyle himself, but also like many religious preachers, attempted to convert others. “The choice was now made in favor of vegetarianism, the spread of which henceforward became my mission.”(Ref 1) He wanted the entire community and the world to become vegetarian. Such a strong stand created difficult situations not only for him but also for his family and friends. Once when his young son was gravely ill and was offered a bowl of nourishing soup containing pieces of meat, Gandhi refused to give it to him, potentially risking his son’s life. POLITICAL DILEMMA Gandhi also struggled with his political views. On one hand he preached non-violence, yet when the First World War broke out, he travelled to far-flung villages and cities to recruit soldiers to fight for the British Empire, to which he was loyal. Many were shocked by his request but once again he rationalized his position, explaining his dilemma, 47

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

“I had hoped to improve my status and that of my people through the British Empire. Whilst in England I was enjoying the protection of the British Fleet, and taking shelter as I did under its armed might, I was directly participating in its potential violence. Therefore, if I desired to retain my connection with the Empire and to live under its banner, one of three courses was open to me: I could declare open resistance to the war and, in accordance with the law of Satyagraha, boycott the Empire until it changed its military policy; or I could seek imprisonment by civil disobedience of such of its laws as were fit to be disobeyed; or I could participate in the war on the side of the Empire and thereby acquire the capacity and fitness for resisting the violence of war. I lacked this capacity and fitness, so I thought there was nothing for it but to serve in the war.”(Ref 1) Later, Gandhi felt so guilty that he turned against British rule and adopted the philosophy of passive resistance and preached nonviolence. IDEALS AND DREAMS When studying Gandhi’s autobiography, I noticed that when he could not resolve his inner conflicts, he found refuge in avoidance. Gandhi finally adopted a philosophy and lifestyle of no meat, no sex and no violence. However, when he attempted to impose his philosophy and lifestyle on others, most refused to accept and follow his wishes. Not only common people but also intellectuals and philosophers told Gandhi that he was naïve to expect that 48

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

the masses would follow his philosophy. But despite the criticism, he remained dedicated to his ideals. In one of my interviews with Sohan Qadri, a wellrespected poet, artist and mystic from India who presently lives in Denmark and travels all over the world lecturing on aesthetics and metaphysics, I asked his views on Gandhi. He said, “I think he was an angry man. He never touched the heart of peace.” When I asked him the reasons, he said, “To be in peace with oneself, one has to leave the family and cultural traditions behind and follow one’s own heart. Gandhi could not do that. He wanted to be a politician and a mystic at the same time. In my opinion politics and spirituality are two different roads going to two different destinations. They do not mix well together. I know Gandhi’s admirers and disciples may not agree with my views but that is my honest opinion.” There is no doubt that Gandhi made some wonderful contributions to his community and to the world at large. I am most impressed by his dedication to the service of others, especially the poor and the under-privileged including the untouchables. Gandhi was a humanist who dedicated his life to serving humanity, but the road he chose for his struggles was not altogether realistic. His idealism caused him a great deal of turmoil and suffering. Gandhi, as an idealistic person, had difficulty accepting that people have strong emotions. He hoped all his life that people would be able to control their negative feelings, especially those of aggression. Rather than trying to resolve conflicts, he focused on controlling and suppressing 49

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

feelings, not realizing that when feelings are suppressed and repressed they invariably resurface with more intensity. This intensity erupted when India and Pakistan became independent and Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs slaughtered each other by the thousands. Rabindranath Tagore had warned Gandhi about such a disaster nearly two decades before it occurred, but Gandhi, dedicated to his ideals, would not accept such a possibility. In one of his interviews Eqbal Ahmad, a well respected Pakistani intellectual, comments on the dialogue between Gandhi and Tagore. “Tagore felt…that Gandhi’s non-cooperation movement would also tend to divide the Hindus from the Muslims, that it would create deep fissures in Indian society. “In mid-July 1921, the two men met in Tagore’s house in Calcutta and Gandhi says, ‘But Gurudev, I have already achieved Hindu-Muslim unity.’ “Tagore replies, ‘When the British either walk out or are driven out by us nationalists, what will happen then?’ “Gandhi replies, ‘But Gurudev, my program for winning swaraj [self-rule] is based on the principle of non-violence.’ “Tagore says, ‘Come, Gandhiji, come. Look over the edge of my veranda. Look down there and see what your so-called non-violent followers are up to.’ Then he shows him the bazaar where clothes are being burned by the noncooperation activists. ‘Do you think you can hold our violent emotions with your non-violent principles? No, I don’t think so. You know you can’t.’ On these themes they would continue arguing for the next two years. 50

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

“What happened twenty-six years later, in 1947, was in some remarkably prescient ways predicted by Tagore. The poet knew better than the Mahatma.”(Ref 2 p 5) When Gandhi witnessed thousands of innocent Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims slaughtered in the name of freedom and independence, he was struck with remorse and guilt and went on a hunger strike to relieve his guilt, hoping that his fasting would stop people from killing each other. Unfortunately his fasting and philosophy of non-violence could not check the wild emotions of the common people or prevent the massacre of 1947. It is also ironic that a prophet of peace died a violent death—he was murdered when he was offering prayers. He failed to realize that religion and politics are an explosive combination.

REFERENCES Ref. 1 Gandhi, Mohandas. Autobiography: The Story of my Experiments With Truth. Boston: Beacon Press, 1993. Ref. 2 Barsamian, David. Eqbal Ahmad: Confronting Empire: Interviews with David Barsamian. Massachusetts: South End Press, 2000.

51

RABINDRANATH TAGORE

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

— RABINDRANATH TAGORE — THE STORY OF TAGORE AND GANDHI’S RELATIONSHIP

It is widely believed that Rabindranath Tagore and Mohandas Gandhi were two of the greatest personalities of the East to touch the hearts, minds and souls of Westerners in the 20th century. Gandhi inspired political reformers like Martin Luther King, Jr. who fought for the rights of blacks in a peaceful way, and psychologists like Erik Erikson who wrote Gandhi’s Truth. Tagore was the first East Indian to receive the Nobel Prize for Literature for his mystic poetry. These two intellectuals had as many differences as they had similarities. Both believed in social reform and spiritual enlightenment and considered freedom, independence, justice and human dignity as their ideals; but in their lives they took different routes to those goals. They had an ambivalent relationship in which respect and resentment, admiration and condemnation went hand in hand. They were both leaders with strong personalities, but being intellectual heavyweights, when they clashed, the whole nation felt the reverberations of the political earthquake. 55

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

To understand the similarities and differences in their personalities and philosophies, and have a better appreciation of the dynamics of their ideological and political conflicts, I went to their biographies. Their first meeting took place in 1915 and the last one in 1940 in Shantiniketan, the academic institute established by Tagore in India. Their relationship, spanning a quarter of a century, went through many ups and downs. In those twenty-five years, they never worked together—they were like two banks of the river of enlightenment, connected with a bridge of respect and goodwill that at times shook and buckled with the fierceness of their conflicts. When the first physical meeting of the two great minds took place in 1915, both had become leaders of their respective schools of thought and as gurus had acquired many students and disciples. They had established their centers for training their followers. After facing serious problems in his Phoenix Ashram in South Africa, Gandhi had returned to India with his friends and students to start a new chapter of his struggle. Gandhi and his disciples visited Shantiniketan to meet Tagore It quickly became apparent that in spite of their mutual respect for each other’s philosophy that they had different styles of training their students. Within a few days Gandhi not only challenged Tagore but also wanted to change the existing system. Before Gandhi’s arrival, Brahmins ate separately from other castes in Shantiniketan. Gandhi, who believed in social equality, suggested that people from all classes and castes eat together. Tagore graciously welcomed that suggestion. 56

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

Gandhi, who believed in self-service rather than being waited upon by others, suggested that all the students do their own cooking and cleaning. In his autobiography he wrote, “I quickly mixed with the teachers and students, and engaged them in a discussion on self-help. I put it to the teachers that, if they and the boys dispensed with the services of paid cooks and cooked their food themselves, it would enable the teachers to control the kitchen from the point of view of boys’ physical and moral health, and it would afford to the students an object lesson in self-help. One or two of them were inclined to shake their heads. Some of them strongly approved of the proposal. The boys welcomed it, if only because of their instinctive taste for novelty. So we launched the experiment. When I invited the Poet to express his opinion, he said that he did not mind it provided the teachers were favorable.”(Ref 1) Tagore’s students and teachers practised the idea but soon returned to their original lifestyle. Out of respect for Gandhi’s philosophy they designated one day a month as a day of rest for their servants and took care of their own needs. They called it a Gandhi Day. Within a short time Gandhi and Tagore, like many friends and lovers, realized that loving each other is very different than living with each other. In many cases, dayto-day realities become more important than abstract ideals. Their honeymoon period of friendship did not last long and soon Gandhi and his students departed. During that brief encounter, Gandhi and Tagore realized that in spite of their mutual respect, they had significant 57

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

differences in their philosophies and that those differences could become a source of conflict and tension. After that meeting they kept a respectful distance from each other. In 1921, when Gandhi visited Tagore in Calcutta to recruit him for his political movement of non-cooperation, the differences between these two intellectual giants transformed into a full blown clash. Secretly, they held long and passionate discussions about the future of the Indian nation but Gandhi found Tagore resistive to the philosophy and practice of non-cooperation. Those dialogues created sparks that turned into flames as political winds swept the entire nation. Gandhi believed that Indians were oppressed and unfairly treated by the British, and urged his countrymen to fight for self-rule, demanding that the British leave India. He held that the only realistic way for Indians to gain freedom and independence was through non-cooperation. He also believed that if Indians stopped using Western clothes, goods and products, it would hurt the British Empire economically and politically and would eventually demoralize them to the point that they would quit India. Gandhi began to organize a grass-roots movement and mobilize the masses to put moral and political pressure on the British government. Tagore also believed in the philosophy of freedom and independence but he feared that Gandhi’s peaceful demonstrations would not remain peaceful and would instead lead to violent confrontations between strikers and police, resulting in the arrests of thousands of innocent people. 58

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

Tagore also felt that Gandhi was focusing more on the political struggle than on educating people, more on revolution rather than evolution. Tagore perceived Britain as a symptom rather than a problem. He shared his insight in these words, “Many of us have the illusion that our subjection is not like a headache, an ailment pestering us from within, but like a load on the head, pressing down on us from without in the shape of the British government and that relief will be ours as soon as we can shake off that load by some means or other. Well, the matter is not so simple as all that. The British government is not the cause of our subjection; it is merely a symptom of a deeper subjection on our part.”(Ref 2) Tagore’s worst fear was that if Gandhi stirred up feelings of anger and resentment against British rule, those feelings might turn into hatred between Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and other religious and ethnic minorities. He was afraid that they might start killing each other once the British left India. “Some of us are reported to be of the opinion that it is mass animosity against the British that will unify India… So this anti-British animus, they say, must be the chief weapon… If that is true, then once the cause of the animosity is gone, in other words when the British leave this country, that artificial bond of unity will snap in a moment. Where, then shall we find a second target for animosity? We shall not need to travel far. We shall find it here, in our country, where we shall mangle each other in mutual antagonism, a thirst for each other’s blood.”(Ref 2) 59

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

While strongly disagreeing with Gandhi’s philosophy of nonviolent non-cooperation, Tagore offered his own solution. He felt that the long-term solution to the dilemma lay in evolution not revolution, education not strikes, by love of fellow human beings and not hate of the British. Tagore perceived Gandhi’s nonviolent solution as potentially violent, based on negative rather than positive emotions, more aggressive than passive. After showing him the violence in his street at that 1921 meeting, Tagore shared his views with Gandhi. “You can see for yourself. There they are howling around it like a lot of demented darveshes. Is that nonviolence, Gandhiji? We Indians are, as you well know, a very emotional people. Do you think you can hold our violent emotions under firm control with your nonviolent principles? No! You know you can’t. Only when the children of our different religions, communities, and castes have been schooled together can we hope to overcome the violent feelings which exist today.”(Ref 2) For the next few years Tagore continued to warn Gandhi and others of the potential for violence in the nonviolence movement. Dutta and Robinson wrote, “On 3rd February 1922 Tagore published a clear statement in the Bengali press warning against the violence latent in the movement. Two days later twenty-two policemen who had fired on a crowd of non-cooperators were burnt alive or hacked to death by the mob at Chauri Chaura. The Mahatma was profoundly shocked. About a week later he suspended the civil disobedience movement. On 10th of 60

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

March he was finally arrested on charges of sedition, tried and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment.”(Ref 2) Tagore was more of a teacher than a political activist. Gandhi called him “The Great Sentinel” because he was reluctant to get actively involved in the movement, a movement for which Tagore harbored great philosophical and ideological reservations. When Tagore would not join the masses and refused to cooperate with the non-cooperative movement he was strongly criticized. Even his loyalty to the Nationalistic Movement was questioned. He had a hard time explaining his position that he believed in freedom but not in the political process that was being utilized. There were times when he felt frustrated, even irritated, because “non-cooperation was both the fashion and the passion of the time.” He swam against the tide for a few years. Tagore believed that the Nationalistic Movement was in denial and that their leaders were focusing more on the outside world than the one inside. They were blaming others and not promoting enough introspection and soulsearching. He wrote, “National self-respect is ordering us to perform an impossible task: to keep one of our eyes wide open and the other one closed in sleep.”(Ref 2) Gandhi and Tagore had one more fundamental difference in their proposed solutions to the national problems. Gandhi had suggested that all Indians should start spinning wool with their own spinning wheels, the charkas, and making their own clothes. Tagore disagreed with that, believing that people should make their own individual choices rather than being cajoled into mass practices. His 61

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

focus was to develop people’s minds rather than training their hands; his approach was more creative than economic, more personal than socialist. Gandhi, frustrated with his dialogue at the 1921 meeting with Tagore, made a last desperate suggestion. “I see my request for your help is almost hopeless. If you can do nothing else for me…Gurudev, you can spin. Why not get all your students to sit down around you and spin?” They both laughed. Tagore retorted, “Poems I can spin, Gandhiji, songs and plays I can spin, but your precious cotton, what a mess I would make.”(Ref 2) After that meeting both shared their opposing views in print. In his essay “The Call of Truth” Tagore wrote, “… But if man can be stunted by big machines, the danger of being stunted by small machines must not be lost sight of. The charka in its proper place can do no harm… But where, by reason of failure to acknowledge the differences in man’s temperament, it is in the wrong place, there thread can only be spun at the cost of a great deal of the mind itself. The mind is no less valuable than cotton thread.”(Ref 2) Gandhi responded in his article “The Great Sentinel” in these words, “It was our love of foreign cloth that ousted the wheel from its position of dignity. Therefore I consider it a sin to wear foreign cloth. I must confess that I do not draw a sharp or any distinction between economics and ethics. Economics that hurt the moral well being of an individual or a nation are immoral and therefore sinful. Thus the economics that permit one country to prey upon another are immoral.” Dutta and Robinson comment on 62

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

such a heated dialogue and disagreement. “Spinning and the spinning wheel charka would become a focus of irreconcilable disagreement between Tagore and Gandhi. Tagore detested Gandhi’s diktat that all true Indians must spin; Gandhi as resolutely insisted on spinning’s profound symbolic significance.”(Ref 2) One of the reasons Tagore was opposed to Gandhi’s spinning wheel was that he thought Gandhi was resisting scientific thinking and progress. In his article “The Cult of the Charka” Tagore wrote, “One thing is certain, that the all-embracing poverty which has overwhelmed our country cannot be removed by working with our hands to the neglect of science.”(Ref 2) Although Tagore and Gandhi had a mystical side to their personalities, Tagore maintained a more scientific attitude towards life and believed in the laws of nature while Gandhi had a religious attitude and believed in miracles. He even believed that human sins could cause environmental disasters. The difference in their philosophy came to the surface when India experienced an earthquake and Gandhi offered a moral rather than a scientific explanation. Tagore was shocked to read Gandhi’s statement, “You may call me superstitious if you like. A man like me cannot but believe that the earthquake is a divine chastisement sent by God for our sins.” Tagore responded, “If we associate ethical principles with cosmic phenomena, we shall have to admit that human nature is morally superior to Providence that preaches its lessons in good behavior in orgies of the worst behavior possible. For we can never 63

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

imagine any civilized ruler of men making indiscriminate examples of casual victims, including children and members of the Untouchable community, in order to impress others dwelling at a safe distance, who possibly deserve severer condemnation…” Gandhi wrote a response to the response stating, “I have the faith that our own sins have more force to ruin that structure than any mere physical phenomenon. There is indissoluble marriage between matter and spirit.” Dutta and Robinson quote Jawaharlal Nehru’s response: “Nehru read Gandhi’s response to the earthquake ‘with a great shock’. He called it a ‘staggering remark’. He welcomed Tagore’s response and ‘wholly agreed’ with it.”(Ref 2) One of the fundamental differences in Tagore and Gandhi’s philosophy was their view of the Western world. Tagore, in spite of political issues he had with the West, was impressed by Western modernization and wanted to build creative bridges between Eastern and Western cultures. Gandhi, on the other hand, not only believed that Western civilization was dangerous to humanity, he moreover wanted Western people to adopt Eastern philosophy, values and traditions. It appears that Tagore looked towards the future while Gandhi looked back to the past. Tagore wanted to learn; Gandhi wanted to teach. Tagore sought to engage in dialogue; Gandhi was bent on preaching. The poet seemed more humble than the reformer. Dutta and Robinson write, “Although Tagore had deep reservations about modern civilization, machines and cities, at bottom he accepted them. 64

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

Fundamentally Tagore was humble, willing to learn as well as teach until the day he died, whereas Gandhi, for all his compelling self-analysis, thought he knew better than anyone else in all matters of importance.” “…Tagore has given India ways to assimilate the West without making mockery of it. Gandhi was not interested in such assimilation, he thought the West should become more like ancient India.”(Ref 2) As Tagore and Gandhi grew older and wiser they lost the cutting edge to their criticism and began to acknowledge and appreciate each other’s contributions. They realized that much as they contradicted each other, they also complemented each other. In 1940, a year before Tagore died at the age of eighty, Gandhi visited Shantiniketan for the last time. During that visit Tagore asked him to look after the “institution” after his death and Gandhi readily agreed. In spite of his philosophical disagreements with Shantiniketan, Gandhi admired its contributions. Shantiniketan was the institution that later on produced people like Satiajit Ray, the Oscar-winning film producer and Indira Gandhi, who by becoming the first female prime minister of India, encouraged the Western world to transcend the patriarchal system and extend maximum political power to women by electing them heads of state. Gandhi’s visit brought the painful chapter of their relationship to a sweet ending. At the end of the visit Tagore graciously asked him, “Accept the institution under your protection, giving it assurance of permanence if you consider it to be a national asset.” Gandhi affectionately 65

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

responded, “Though I have always regarded Shantiniketan as my second home, this visit has brought me nearer to it than ever before.”(Ref 2) I find it quite interesting to read that many intellectuals who were faithful followers of Gandhi’s teachings in their youth came closer to Tagore’s philosophy as they grew older. One such intellectual was Jawaharlal Nehru. In 1921 he “found himself agreeing more with Gandhi.” But in 1961, a year before his death, when he was Prime Minister of India he wrote, “But the more I have read what Tagore wrote then, the more I have appreciated it and felt in tune with it.” Although those two great men never met again physically after 1940, I am confident that their passionate relationship will remain a fascinating chapter of Indian history for years to come and that their thoughts, ideas and philosophies will guide us in our contemporary political and social conflicts, locally, nationally and internationally. *Mohandas Gandhi Rabindranath Tagore

1869—1948 1861—1941

REFERENCES Ref. 1 Gandhi, Mohandas. An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth. Boston: Beacon Press, 1993. Ref. 2 Krishna, Dutta, and Robinson, Andrew. Rabindranath Tagore: the Myriad-minded Man. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 1995.

66

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

GANDHI’S TRUTH AND MILITANT NONVIOLENCE

After reading Gandhi’s autobiography and his speeches and sharing my impressions about his life and personality, dilemmas and dreams, struggles and conflicts, ideology and philosophy in my previous essays, I became curious about Erik Erikson’s National Book Award and Pulitzer Prize-winning book, Gandhi’s Truth…On the Origins of Militant Non-violence. My curiosity was aroused not only because of the expression “militant non-violence” which seemed like a contradiction of terms, but also because Erik Erikson has been one of the most respected psychoanalysts and intellectuals of our time, who became famous after the publication of his book Childhood and Society focusing on the eight stages of the human life cycle. As I read his book about Gandhi, I became impressed by his insightful and candid analysis. Erikson openly admitted his bias in the introduction of the book, “This book describes a Westerner’s and a psychoanalyst’s search for the historical presence of Mahatma Gandhi and for the meaning of what he called Truth.” Being a great admirer of Sigmund Freud and psychoanalysis I was intrigued with Erikson’s interpretations of Gandhi’s sexual, political and spiritual conflicts. 67

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

Erikson states that he became interested in Gandhi’s life after he and his Canadian wife Joan were invited to Ahmedabad, India, to present at a conference. During that trip different aspects of Indian culture, from spiritual traditions to traffic, touched him. He shares his scary but exhilarating experience of driving, “But to drive into the city is a hair-raising experience, like boating through rapids. Everybody and everything spills out into the middle of the street, people on foot and on bicycles, on oxcarts and occasionally on camels—and erratic goats, trotting donkeys, ambling cows, and bulky buffaloes. All of this seems to approach one’s car like a solid phalanx not yielding an inch until the very last moment and only at the shrieking insistence of the driver’s horn. But then it yields easily, almost elegantly.” Erikson was also impressed by the hospitality of a number of people who had known Gandhi personally and were involved in his political struggles. After his initial research Erikson returned to India a year later to interview those people and develop his psychodynamic and psycho-historical hypotheses about Gandhi’s life. Erikson discovered that Ahmedabad was of “vital importance in his [Gandhi’s] advent as a national leader and as the originator of militant nonviolence.” It was the city where the judge had sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment. Erikson also stated in his book that it did not take him long to get in touch with people’s ambivalence about Gandhi’s philosophy and personality. On one hand some adored and even worshiped him whilst to others he was “a hypocritical politician and a saint of 68

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

uneasy honesty” who in his old age “used to sleep with his niece.” Erikson as a psychoanalyst was quite aware that human personalities are multi-dimensional and that creative and destructive sides can co-exist in the same person. From Gandhi’s autobiography and his writings, and interviews with Gandhi’s admirers and critics, Erikson tried to trace the psychosexual and psycho-political evolution of his philosophy and political struggle. Erikson was aware that many believed that Gandhi was “a politician who tried to be a saint.” He very successfully described and analyzed how at different stages of his life Gandhi failed and how he turned his failures into successes. Erikson highlighted how Gandhi’s personality and his interaction with social and political circumstances helped him develop his political and spiritual instrument of militant nonviolence, which he named Satyagraha, an instrument he felt vital for his mission to help Indians gain their independence. Gandhi was an unusual character with extra-ordinary qualities and ideals. On one hand he wanted to be a mystic, on the other hand a political leader, on one hand a reformer and on the other hand a saint. All his life he tried to build bridges between political and religious worlds. When Erikson went to visit Gandhi’s ashram he found the following quotation on a plaque on the wall: “I am told that religion and politics are different spheres of life. But I would say without a moment’s hesitation and yet in all modesty that those who claim this do not know what religion is.” 69

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

Erikson delves deep into Gandhi’s autobiography to find the personal origins of his militant non-violence. He feels that at an early age Gandhi, like other reformers, became aware that he had far more creative powers as well as destructive energies than ordinary people and that he had to find special ways to control or channel those powers and energies. Erikson wrote, “…a man like Gandhi, I would surmise, early knew that he had to contain a superior energy of destructive, as well as benevolent forces, an energy which he later called Truth Force and endowed with a discipline.” Some of the ways Gandhi tried to discipline his creative and destructive, sexual and aggressive energies were through fasting and celibacy. In this process of self-control, on one hand Gandhi developed a moralistic and religious attitude towards life and on the other hand he experienced a number of depressive episodes throughout his life. During his stay in England he had taken a vow “to abstain from meat, women and wine”, a rigorous practice to control his desires, passions and instincts. His self-control regarding meat and sex also helped him formulate his philosophy of non-violence. But to put his philosophy into action he needed the cooperation of other people so that they could be instrumental in bringing about social and political changes. Being an idealist Gandhi felt that it should not be difficult for his followers to exercise self-control and abstain from meat, sex and violence, not realizing that most people were not as committed and self disciplined as he was. It was not easy for them to sacrifice things close to their heart. Inevitably Gandhi experienced a number of political disap70

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

pointments in his movement and had to contend with episodes of violence under his flag of non-violence. Many people were injured and killed in the non-cooperation and non-violent movement. Gandhi himself realized the tragedy and confessed to his followers, “What we have taken as dharma is not dharma. We commit violence on a large scale in the name of non-violence. Fearing to shed blood, we torment people every day and dry up their blood.” Erikson compared Mohandas Gandhi with Sigmund Freud and noted that both of them wrote autobiographies and shared details of their personalities and lifestyles to discover their own truth as well as the truth of human nature. Both of them tried to find ways to deal with the dark side of the human personality and with sexual and aggressive instincts. What Freud tried to achieve at an emotional level Gandhi tried to achieve at a political level. Freud discovered psychoanalysis and Gandhi discovered Satyagraha. Erikson highlighted the irony that in the name of Freudian psychology there was a lot of acting out of sex and in the name of Gandhian Satyagraha there was a lot of acting out of violence. Erikson felt that Gandhi wanted to explore how much controlled violence is needed to purge out the ills and injustices of the community and wrote, “One suspects, in fact, that Gandhi could come closest to an emotional acknowledgement of violence by way of the idea that one must violently rid oneself of what is hopelessly impure.” We are all aware by now that if sexual and aggressive instincts are not dealt with at a conscious level and are repressed, then there is always a danger of them erupting in 71

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

a violent way. Erikson believed that in the beginning when Gandhi had not perfected his art, there were a number of misunderstandings that led to opposite outcomes, violent outbursts taking place while Gandhi was trying to conduct peaceful processions. Erikson points out that for a while Gandhi continued to “speak ambiguously and was generally understood as supporting anarchist and militant youth.” He gives an example of one speech that led to a disaster, as it created misunderstandings. Gandhi had said, “If we trust and fear God, we shall have to fear no one, no Maharajas, no Viceroys, no detectives, not even King George. I honor the anarchist for his love of the country. I honor him for his bravery in being willing to die for his country; but I ask him: Is killing honorable? …I have been told: ‘Had we not done this, had some people not thrown bombs, we should never have gained what we have now.’” His followers sometimes misinterpreted such speeches, and they used them to incite violence and promote the perception that Gandhi supported their terrorist activities. As Gandhi matured as a politician and got to know his followers and opponents, his disciples and rivals, he mastered the art of militant non-violence. He realized that if he were to become successful, he needed a group of followers and disciples who understood his philosophy and were dedicated and committed to practise it faithfully. There was a need for them to understand that Gandhi expected selfsacrifice so that there was a double conversion: conversion in the oppressed protestor to be peaceful in a violent environment and conversion in the oppressor to change his heart and stop the cycle of violence and injustice. In the 72

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

final analysis Gandhi believed that to break the cycle of violence, violence had to be embraced by non-violence. Erikson wrote, “Gandhi could sympathize with proud and violent youth, but he believed that violence breeds violence from generation to generation and that only the combined insight and discipline of Satyagraha can really disarm man, or rather, give him a power stronger than all arms.” Erikson believed that Gandhi’s master performance of Satyagraha was the Salt March to the sea. The time had come for him to prove to himself, his disciples and his opponents that he could perform political and spiritual miracles. He and his followers started the march and within no time were joined by the whole nation. His followers marched with dedication and commitment. Gandhi and his disciples were ready to sacrifice their lives. That was the moment in history when the world saw the miracle of Satyagraha—violence met with nonviolence. They were the prophets of peace, justice and freedom. Erikson notes, “In 1930, again in the fateful month of March, the Mahatma started a new campaign… Now the Mahatma felt ready to stake everything once more on a national Satyagraha…the Salt Satyagraha. In his speech he stated, ‘In all probability this will be my last speech to you. Even if the Government allows me to march tomorrow morning, this will be my last speech on the sacred banks of the Sabarmari. Possibly these may be the last words of my life here.’” It is significant to note that as Gandhi matured as a political leader his public speeches became shorter and to the point, more serene than fiery. The following that 73

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

Gandhi had built was becoming a threat for the authorities. The absence of violent protest was sometimes more provocative than violent outbursts. “The very absence of violence, however, again aroused the police to pointed viciousness.” The report of a British journalist, Webb Miller, has become the classical account of Satyagraha on the front line. Under the leadership of Sarojini Naidu and Manilal Gandhi (Devaras and Ramdas had already been arrested), 2500 volunteers “attacked” the Dharasana Salt Works not far from Delhi. When followers of Gandhi marched forward they were attacked. “Suddenly at a word of command, scores of native policemen rushed upon the advancing marchers and rained blows on their heads with their steel-shod lathis [staves]. Not one of the marchers even raised an arm to fend off the blows. They went down like ten-pins. From where I stood I heard the sickening whack of the clubs on unprotected skulls. The waiting crowd fell sprawling, unconscious or writhing with fractured skulls or broken shoulders… The survivors, without breaking ranks, silently and doggedly marched on until struck down. “They marched steadily, with heads up, without the encouragement of music, or cheering or any possibility that they might escape serious injury or death. The police rushed out and methodically and mechanically beat down the second column. There was no struggle; the marchers simply walked forward till struck down…” The brutality of police officers did not stop there. The violence knew no bounds that day. They were determined to crush the protesters and “if they did not succeed in 74

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

bashing in the volunteers’ skulls, they kicked and stabbed them in the testicles. “Hour after hour stretcher-bearers carried back a stream of inert bleeding bodies.” Erikson believed that such a performance by Gandhi’s dedicated followers had an Oscar-winning quality as “… The Salt Satyagraha had demonstrated to the world the nearly flawless use of a new instrument of peaceful militancy.” Erikson saw the Salt March as crucial in Gandhi’s political career as well as the Independence movement— the whole struggle which had limped along for some time had achieved a major breakthrough. That incident established Gandhi as a national leader not only in the eyes of his countrymen but also in the eyes of the British. Those sacrifices paved the way for Gandhi to be invited to England with a completely new and inspiring mandate. He was moving closer to his dream. However, his visit to England elicited mixed reactions. Erikson stated, “After some compromises all around, Gandhi was invited to talks with the Viceroy. Churchill scoffed at the ‘seditious fakir, striding half-naked up the steps of the Viceroy’s palace, to negotiate with the representative of the King-Emperor.’ But the Viceroy, Lord Irwin, has described the meeting as ‘the most dramatic personal encounter between a Viceroy and an Indian leader.’” Erikson ended his book with a statement made by Tagore about Gandhi. I find it quite fascinating that Erikson disagreed with Tagore and commented, “In May 1930 Tagore wrote triumphantly to the Manchester Guardian that Europe had now lost her moral prestige in Asia. Weak Asia, he said, praising Mahatma, 75

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

‘could now afford to look down on Europe where before she looked up.’ Gandhi, as I read him, might have said it differently: Asia could now look Europe in the eye—not more, nor less, not up to, not down on. Where man can and will do that, there, sooner or later, will be mutual recognition.” Erikson as a humanist thought that Gandhi also believed that all people from different cultures and civilizations were equal, not realizing that Gandhi believed that Eastern culture was better than the Western civilization. Gandhi had in fact earlier stated: “The tendency of the Indian civilization is to elevate moral being, that of the Western civilization is to propagate immorality. The later is godless, the former is based on a belief in God.” “Indian civilization is the best and that the European is a nine days’ wonder.” If Erikson could disagree with Tagore then I can also respectfully dare to disagree with Erikson and say a few words in favor of Tagore. In my humble opinion the Eastern poet Tagore knew Gandhi better than the Western psychoanalyst.

REFERENCE

Ref. 1 Erikson, Erik. Gandhi’s Truth: On the Origins of Militant Nonviolence. New York: W. W. Norton and Company Inc., 1969

76

MOHAMMAD IQBAL

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

— MOHAMMAND IQBAL — A MUSLIM SCHOLAR AND REFORMER

At medical school in Pakistan, I met many people who were great admirers of Mohammad Iqbal. Some considered him an extraordinary poet, others a distinguished philosopher, and still others a saint. Many saw him as a visionary who conceived a separate homeland for Indian Muslims. In their eyes Pakistan is Iqbal’s dream. Alongside Iqbal’s admirers there were cynics who had no regard for him. They perceived him as a man who once drank alcohol and visited prostitutes, who had multiple wives, who plagiarized the poetry of Western philosophers and intellectuals and who desperately begged the British authorities for a knighthood so that he could be known as Sir Mohammad Iqbal. Those extreme and sometimes contradictory interpretations of Iqbal’s life are reflections not only of his creative genius but also of the sentimental nature of the Asian and Muslim communities to which he belonged. In those communities artists, writers and intellectuals provoke intense reactions. They are loved or hated, worshiped or despised. Creative people, rather than being accepted as human beings, are either revered as saints or cursed as sinners. 79

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

To achieve a more realistic understanding of Iqbal’s ideology, philosophy and lifestyle, I studied his biographies and collections of lectures, speeches and letters. Zirk-eIqbal by Abdul Majeed Salik, is a very balanced biography of Iqbal. Affectionately and respectfully written, it is a genuine attempt to integrate family, social, creative, romantic and political dimensions of Iqbal’s life. It portrays Iqbal as a Muslim scholar with a keen interest in Islam as a philosophy and Muslims as a nation. Iqbal studied different religious and secular philosophies and tried to present a modern interpretation of Islam, which is highlighted in his book Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, a collection of his lectures.(Ref 5) In those lectures Iqbal not only challenged the fundamentalist interpretation of Islam but also explored the mysterious relationship between religion, mysticism, psychology and science. Iqbal suggests that for a contemporary reading of scriptures we need to avoid concrete interpretation and learn to understand the stories and messages in a symbolic and metaphorical way, as we do with masterpieces of world literature. Reading Iqbal’s biographies, lectures and speeches, I became convinced that Iqbal was not only an academic but also a political activist. He not only participated in elections but also got involved in drafting resolutions for Muslims at the local, national and international levels. His background in law helped him in discussions of constitutional matters and furthered his ambition to lead Muslims socially and politically worldwide. Though politically ambitious, Iqbal also had a keen 80

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

interest in spiritual and metaphysical matters. He loved to visit holy shrines of Muslim saints and write poetry about his visits. According to Salik, “Iqbal held great reverence for saints. Before he travelled to England he visited the holy shrine of Hazrat Nizam-ud-din and created his poem iltejae-musafir [request of a traveler].”(Ref 1 p 60) I find it quite fascinating that Iqbal tried to build bridges between religion and politics, and science and mysticism. He had, it seems, developed a multi-faceted personality. As well as having created poems that touched the hearts of masses when he read them in Anjamun-e-himayat-e-Islam (an organization to promote the cause of Islam) gatherings, he delivered philosophical lectures that inspired the intellectuals. At various stages of his life, certain Eastern and Western philosophers and philosophies impressed Iqbal, but as he grew older he became more and more preoccupied with the destiny of the Muslim nation. He made a number of political and philosophical contributions to the Muslim cause. I was fascinated to read how his Indian identity transformed into a Muslim identity. Iqbal belonged to a Kashmiri Brahmin family who converted to Islam in the seventeenth century. According to one narration, his great-great grandfather had been impressed by a Muslim saint and had accepted Islam. The saint in turn was so impressed with him that he offered him his daughter in marriage, and made him a son-in law. Iqbal’s father was also a well-respected member of his community. Although illiterate, people consulted him regarding religious matters as a wise old man. When Iqbal 81

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

shared stories about his childhood, he often suggested that his father had spiritual and healing powers. Even before Iqbal was born his father had a dream that a large bird fell from the sky into his lap. Iqbal’s father’s interpretation of his dream was that his son would be a great Muslim scholar, not realizing that his son would also be a famous poet who would use the eagle, a big bird, as a master symbol in his poetry. When Iqbal was a little boy his father had another dream in which he saw a caravan traveling outside the city. In that caravan he saw a sick person who needed his help. Iqbal’s father went looking for that gypsy group and when he found them he offered his services. The travelers were amazed. Iqbal’s father prayed and the sick person’s health improved. Growing up in such a family Iqbal believed in saints and mystics and their healing and spiritual powers. Born in 1873, Iqbal was raised in the city of Sialkot in Punjab, where he received his early education. In 1895, at the age of 22, he moved to Lahore where at Government College he passed his Bachelor of Arts with honors, finished his Masters in Philosophy, and in 1899 received his Gold Medal. Iqbal not only shone as a student but also became an accomplished poet. His teachers and classmates were equally impressed. As he grew older he was invited to mushairas [poetry meetings] to recite. His popularity increased tenfold when he recited his poems in the annual meetings of Anjuman-e-hamayat-e-Islam. That appears to be the beginning of his involvement in the cause and future 82

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

of the Muslim nation. Iqbal’s poems were also published in the respectable literary journal Makhzan. He had a keen interest in English as well as Arabic literature and was so impressed by English poems for children that he translated many into Urdu. His Masters degree completed, he chose to become a teacher and within a short time became Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Government College in Lahore. Iqbal had an ambivalent relationship with his older brother as he was generous and controlling at the same time. The brother encouraged Iqbal to go to Europe for further studies for which he offered to pay the tuition and other expenses. Iqbal studied philosophy and law in England and Germany, focusing in his PhD thesis on Iranian Metaphysical Philosophy. Over the years Iqbal developed a keen interest in philosophical as well as mystical dimensions of religion, especially Islam. When Iqbal returned to India in 1908, he had developed a strong antipathy to the nationalistic ideology of Europe and a deep appreciation of Islamic philosophy and mythology. After his return, his passion and involvement with the political, ideological and spiritual dimensions of Islam increased, as did his popularity. But that popularity was a mixed blessing—he was praised and adored by many admirers, and simultaneously condemned and criticized by some of his opponents. When Iqbal began his challenge of fundamentalist traditions of Muslim theology and practices, and tried to offer a more liberal and modern interpretation of Islam, he was attacked by traditional and conservative groups. 83

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

Once when he recited his famous poem shikaw [complaint to God] in the 1911 annual meeting of Anjamun-e-himayat-e-Islam, he addressed God and respectfully shared his complaints. Many traditional and conservative Muslims were offended, including his father, who was present in the meeting and who, listening to the poem, wept bitterly. There was so much moral pressure on Iqbal that he wrote a response to that poem, jawab-eshikwa, in which God answers all those complaints.(Ref 1 p 102) Although that poem is a masterpiece from an artistic and linguistic point of view, it reflects Iqbal’s conflict with traditional Muslims, and the necessity for compromise. He wished to avoid total ostracism by the community that he wanted to lead. His compromise was not fully accepted by all Muslims, some of whom reported him to the clerics, and who in turn declared a fatwa, [decree] stating that his poetry was blasphemous and that he should be socially ostracized. Such a reaction escalated the conflicts between Iqbal’s admirers and his critics, his friends and his enemies. Some did not consider him a Muslim at all while others like Zafar Ali Khan proposed that he should be sent to Japan to preach Islam.(Ref 1 p 104) Those were the years when Iqbal got intimately involved with the Muslim cause and formulated his philosophy of Pan-Islamism and his Two Nations Theory. He wanted Indian Muslims to have a separate identity from Indian Hindus, and furthermore to identify with Muslims of the world, especially from Saudi Arabia and the Middle 84

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

East. Rather than being proud of their cultural heritage he wanted them to be proud of their religious and spiritual heritage. Those ideas developed over the years and found political and social expression in Iqbal’s life. Salik wrote, “Iqbal decided to dedicate his life for the unity and progress of Muslim nation.”(Ref 1 p 115) When scholars who believed in Hindu-Muslim unity questioned Iqbal’s Two Nations theory, he responded, “There was a time I also believed that there should be no division socially on the basis of religion. And I still believe that in my personal life. But now I believe that at a national level Hindus and Muslims should maintain their separate religious identities. To have a joint national identity in India might sound a beautiful and poetic concept, but it is quite unrealistic in the present social and political climate of India.”(Ref 1 p 117) Iqbal became actively involved with the Muslim League and over the years had passionate discussions with Mohammad Ali Jinnah. He tried his best to convince him of his philosophy. In 1916, in Lucknow, when Hindus and Muslims, Congress and the Muslim League decided to work together and Jinnah cooperated with Congress, Iqbal was quite upset, as he did not see it as a good omen for Muslims. Until 1926 Iqbal had remained distant from active politics but when he could no longer resist, he took part in the elections and won. After the elections Iqbal’s fight for the cause of Indian Muslims escalated. When the independence movement from British rule 85

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

gained momentum, Iqbal found himself in conflict with Mohandas Gandhi, who by then had become a national leader of Hindus as well as Muslims, Sikhs, Untouchables and other minorities. At one stage when Iqbal and Gandhi met face to face, Gandhi stated that he would accept a proposal for the future of Muslims if it were a joint submission by all the groups involved; when Iqbal retorted that he was talking like some British politician, Gandhi felt hurt and disappointed. Iqbal’s dream of a separate homeland for Muslims went through different phases. In the beginning even Muslim leaders like Mohammad Ali Jinnah opposed him. Jinnah had been so disillusioned by Muslims and their political conflicts that he went back to England. Iqbal continued to pressure Jinnah not only to return to India but also to lead the Muslim nation. In one of his letters Iqbal wrote to Jinnah, “Today, in India, you are the only Muslim who can lead the Muslim nation in these turbulent times.”(Ref 1 p 240) In the end Iqbal inspired Jinnah to revitalize the Muslim League and convinced him that it was best for Muslims to have a separate homeland to safeguard their rights and interests. In his speech in 1930 he stated, “The principle of European democracy cannot be applied to India without recognizing the fact of communal groups. The Muslim demand for the creation of a ‘Muslim India’ within India is, therefore, perfectly justified…India is the greatest Muslim country in the world. The life of Islam, as a cultural force, in this country, very largely depends on its centralization in a specified territory…I therefore demand the formation of 86

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

a consolidated Muslim State in the best interests of India and Islam.”(Ref 2 pp 11,12,14) When Iqbal’s son Aftab Iqbal, who was in England pursuing higher studies, read his father’s speech in the local newspapers, he showed it to Mohammad Ali Jinnah. Aftab was shocked when Jinnah not only laughed at the speech but also called it nonsense, stating that it was a poet’s dream that would never come true.(Ref 4 p 153) Aftab, offended by Jinnah’s comments, wrote to his father about the incident. However, Jinnah had to take Mohammad Iqbal seriously when Winston Churchill suggested that he should go back to India and help Iqbal lay a foundation for Pakistan.(Ref 4 p 153) Iqbal was also impressed by the economic ideology of socialism, and tried to bring the philosophies of Mohammad and Marx together. He was so much in awe of Marx that he called him a prophet without a holy book, an atheist prophet. For Iqbal, Socialism + God = Islam. He did not focus on the blatant contradictions of the two ideologies. Salik wrote, “Iqbal believed that if we add God to Socialism then we come very close to Islam.”(Ref 1 p 187) When the poet and philosopher Iqbal became a political activist and reformer, he strove to secure human rights for all segments of society. He fought for the education of children, equal rights for women and economic rights for farmers. Because of the influence of socialism on his ideology he believed that farms belonged to the farmers and not to the landlords and governments. He believed that if farmers and their families were deprived of the basic neces87

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

sities of life they had the right to become violent and aggressively fight for their rights. He wrote: Jis khait say dehkaan ko muyassar na ho rozi Us khait kay har khosha-e-gandam ko jala do (The field that does not give sustenance to its own tiller, Should be burnt to the ground with its wheat, fodder and filler)* Iqbal had added an aggressive dimension of socialist ideology to his philosophy, believing that the end justified the means. He envisioned a fair and just society that must be fought for individually and collectively, and socially and politically. Iqbal believed that for Muslims to gain their independence and their rights, they needed to be ready to make sacrifices for their ideals and dreams. In a speech in 1930 he stated, “Then will arrive the moment for an independent and concerted political action by the Muslims of India. If you are at all serious about your ideals and aspirations, you must be ready for such an action.”(Ref 2 p 29) Iqbal had said that he was willing to go to jail for his ideals. He claimed a deep understanding of the dynamics of the rise and fall of nations developed by studying not only Islamic history but also the history of western nations. Iqbal, like Gandhi, was not impressed by western civilization and found it dangerous for human evolution. He wanted Asians, especially Muslims, to follow their own 88

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

religious traditions rather than Western secular traditions. He expressed his sentiments to his countrymen “Europe ki ghulami peh razamand hua tou Mujh ko toe gila tujh say hay, europe say naheen hay” (That you submitted to the subservience of European texture My complaint is with you, not with the Western culture)* While reading Iqbal’s biographies and studying the evolution of his personality, philosophy and identity, I became aware that there was a time when Iqbal was a dedicated nationalist who wrote patriotic poems, but that during his few years’ stay in Europe, his cultural identity had transformed into one of religion. He became more of a Muslim than an Indian and started a movement for a separate homeland for Indian Muslims. Rather than identifying with his Hindu and Sikh and brothers and sisters of India, he started to identify with his Muslim brothers and sisters of Africa, especially in the Middle East. Iqbal was not impressed by the European concepts of state and nationalism, as he believed that they were sources of violence, war and bloodshed as nationalist leaders fought for economic domination, geographical boundaries and political ideologies. It is ironic that Iqbal failed to realize that he was replacing nationalism with religion. He did not understand 89

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

that religious leaders, like nationalists, have also been a danger for peaceful communities and have declared holy wars to defend their spiritual borders, power and religious territories. He did not realize that there has been as much innocent blood shed in the name of God as in the names of national flags and anthems, and that religious fanatics and fundamentalists are as willing to kill and die as the soldiers of any national army. The more preoccupied Iqbal became with religious ideology, the more he fought for a separate homeland for Indian Muslims—the Two Nation strategy. Such an ideology placed him in direct conflict first with Mohammad Ali Jinnah and later with Mohandas Gandhi. There was a time when Jinnah was “a leader of India’s National Congress” and “India’s best Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity”,(Ref 3) but Iqbal strongly disagreed with him and when he returned from England after his four-year absence, Iqbal finally convinced him of his ideology. Iqbal considered himself a great fighter for the legal rights of minorities, including the Untouchables. Gandhi, who considered himself a leader of the Untouchables as he had fought for their social rights and paved the way for social integration with other Hindu classes and castes, was shocked when Iqbal criticized and challenged him. Iqbal believed that to ensure and protect the legal and political rights of minorities, whether Muslims or Untouchables, they should have separate elections. Gandhi disagreed, believing that in a politically secular state all citizens, irrespective of their religious and cultural background, should 90

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

be treated equally and enjoy equal rights and privileges. Iqbal insisted that in theory it seemed a noble idea but it was too idealistic; he feared that since Hindus were the largest group in India, they would always achieve a majority in the assemblies, and the rights of minorities would be violated. The conflict between Iqbal and Gandhi reached a crisis when they met at a conference and confronted each other. Salik wrote, “Gandhi announced that he was willing to accept Muslim demands provided they withdraw from the demand of separate elections for Untouchables but Allama Iqbal was not willing to withdraw from that demand. He could not accept Untouchables being deprived of the same rights as he was demanding for Muslims. He considered both communities as minorities and wanted to fight for the rights of all minorities.”(Ref 1 p 189) Iqbal pursued his political ideology for a few years but eventually became frustrated and weary. As his physical health declined, so did his energy, enthusiasm and motivation. He was eventually brokenhearted over the opposition of the powerful Unionist Party, a strong political party that insisted on Hindu Muslim unity and gained popularity in Punjab. Salik wrote, “Allama Iqbal had great differences with the Unionist Party as it was a joint party of Muslim, Hindu and Sikh farmers.”(Ref 1 p 244) “Till his last days Iqbal could not accept the Unionist Party as he believed in a separate nationhood for Muslims.”(Ref 1 p 250) There was a time when Iqbal doubted that his dream would come true but he continued to urge Jinnah to fight 91

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

for a separate homeland for Muslims. When Iqbal died in 1938, no one could predict the future of the struggle of independence for Hindus, Muslims and Untouchables. Iqbal was adored and loved by intellectuals, politicians and lay people not only during his life but also after his death. When the resolution for an independent Pakistan was accepted in 1940, Mohammad Ali Jinnah commented to his secretary Matlub-ul-Hasan Syed that if Iqbal were alive he would be very happy, as he would have seen his dream coming true.(Ref 4 159) Jinnah also acknowledged Iqbal’s contribution when he was presiding at a function on the anniversary of Iqbal’s death, stating that if he lived long enough to see an Islamic State in India and if at that time if he were asked to chose between being head of State and Iqbal’s books, he would choose Iqbal’s creations.(Ref 1 p 270) Iqbal’s lectures, speeches and letters reveal his views on other Muslim countries, especially the Middle East conflict that was to become an international nightmare. Even in the1930s when the idea of a separate homeland for Jews was presented and the concept of Israel was discussed in the Punjab Provincial Muslim League at Lahore on 27th July, 1937, Iqbal expressed his opposition and criticized British policy in these words, “Never were the motives of British Imperialism in regard to the Muslim People of the Near East so completely unmasked as in the Report of the Royal Commission. The idea of a national home for the Jews in Palestine was only a device. In fact, British Imperialism sought a home for itself in the form of a permanent mandate in the religious home of the Muslims. 92

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

This is indeed a dangerous experiment, as a member of British parliament has rightly described it and can never lead to a solution of the British problem in the Mediterranean. Far from being a solution of the British problem in the Mediterranean, it is really the beginning of the future difficulties of British Imperialism. The sale of the Holy Land including the mosque of Omar, inflicted on the Arabs with the threat of martial law and softened by an appeal to their generosity, reveals bankruptcy of statesmanship rather than its achievement. The offer of a piece of a rich land to the Jews and the rocky desert plus cash to the Arabs is no political wisdom. It is a low transaction unworthy of and damaging to the honor of a great people in whose name definite promises of liberty and confederation were made to the Arabs.”(Ref 2 p 221) In his letter to a friend in July 1937, Iqbal wrote, “If the British people are duped by propaganda against the Arabs, I feel the consequences of the present policy will be grave.”(Ref 2 p 219) I sometimes wonder whether Iqbal, who supported Pakistan but opposed Israel, ever saw a similarity between these two states. One was created as a homeland for the colonized followers of a monotheistic religion, Islam, and the other for the persecuted followers of another monotheistic religion, Judaism—the only two states in the 20th century born from the womb of religion. I wonder what Iqbal would have said if he could have seen what happened to Pakistan, Bangladesh and Israel in the last 50 years. Would he still insist on a theocratic state in which religion 93

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

and politics embrace each other and create an environment fertile for religious battles and holy wars? Would he still insist, “Politics have their roots in the spiritual life of man. It is my belief that Islam is not a matter of private opinion. It is a society, or if you like a civic church.”(Ref 2 p 34) I wonder if, having seen the massacres of 1947 where his dream of a separate homeland for Indian Muslims was drenched with blood, and after seeing the rise of religious fundamentalism in Pakistan as well as India over the decades, still insist, “In Islam God and the Universe, spirit and matter, Church and State are organic to each other.”(Ref 2 p 5) and “The religious ideal of Islam, therefore, is organically related to the social order which it has created. The rejection of one will eventually involve the rejection of the other.”(Ref 2 p 8) Would he have changed his mind and joined those intellectuals and human rights advocates of the world who believe that to live in peace and harmony in a modern state we need to keep religion and politics separate? Would he ever have accepted the notion that we need to separate Church and State in all societies so that we can create harmonious multicultural and secular states and live in peace and harmony with each other individually and collectively, socially and politically? * Special thanks to Zia Ahmed for the translation of Iqbal’s couplets

94

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

REFERENCES Ref. 1 Salik, Abdul Majeed. Zikr-e-Iqbal: Biography of Hazrat Allama Iqbal. Delhi: Chaman Book Depot, Urdu Bazaar. Ref. 2 Tariq, A R. Compiled Speeches and Statements by Iqbal. Lahore: Ghulam Ali and Sons, Publishers. Ref. 3 Wolpert, Stanley. Jinnah of Pakistan. New York: Oxford University Press, 1984. Ref. 4 Aftab Iqbal, Begum Rasheeda. Iqbal-o-Aftab. Pakistan: Isharaat Publications, 2002. Ref. 5 Mohammad Iqbal. Reconstruction of Religious Thought In Islam. Lahore: Sang-eMeel Publishers, 1996.

95

MOHAMMAD ALI JINNAH

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

— MOHAMMAD ALI JINNAH — THE STORY OF GANDHI AND JINNAH’S RELATIONSHIP

We are all aware that Mohandas Gandhi and Mohammad Ali Jinnah were two great political leaders who played a decisive role in the independence movement of India and birth of Pakistan. When I compared their biographies and the evolution of their political struggles, I discovered that they started with similar goals and dreams; but with the passage of time they grew apart, resulting in the birth of two states rather than one. They had never foreseen that at the end of their political pregnancy, they would be delivering twin states by a painful caesarian section performed by a British surgeon, Lord Mountbatten. Such a delivery was a mixed blessing. On the 15th of August 1947, some were mourning while others were celebrating, some were soaked in blood while others danced and rejoiced. Whenever I read the painful and tragic chapter of the massacre of 1947, I wonder about the roles of the Muslim League and the Indian National Congress and their leaders including Gandhi and Jinnah. I ask myself, why could they not prevent the murder of thousands of innocent men, women and children from Muslim, Hindu and Sikh fami99

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

lies who were slaughtered on the altar of the independence of India and the birth of a separate state for Indian Muslims. How was it justified? While reviewing the dynamics of that tragedy I became fascinated with the complex and ambivalent relationship of Jinnah and Gandhi. It is intriguing how both started their journey as active members of the Indian National Congress with the ideal of Hindu-Muslim unity that ended with Hindu and Muslim separation. Eventually their differences became more important than their similarities and the prophets of peace became leaders of communal warfare. S.K. Majumdar wrote, “Their [Gandhi and Jinnah’s] politics of conflict, the great Indian Experiment, degenerated into a vicious communal battle delivering a body blow, an earthquake shattering the very mosaic of India.”(Ref 1 p v) To understand the dynamics of their relationship, the evolution of their political struggle and their impact on Indian politics, I delved into their biographies and the history of India’s independence movement. In this essay I will share a few glimpses of their troubled and troubling relationship. Mohandas Gandhi and Mohammad Ali Jinnah belonged to Gujarati Hindu families. “Gandhi’s Hindu merchant (bania) family by remarkable coincidence, settled barely thirty miles to the north of Jinnah’s grandparents, in the state of Rajkot. Thus the parents of the Fathers of both India and Pakistan shared a single mother tongue, Gujarati, though that never helped their offspring to communicate.”(Ref 2 p 4) Jinnah’s family embraced Islam, not realizing that their son would give birth to a Muslim state. 100

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

After finishing their early education, both went to England to study law and during that period encountered Congress leaders including Dadabhai Naoraji. Jinnah was far more influenced by him than Gandhi who at that time was more interested in vegetarianism than politics. “Jinnah frequented the House of Commons and various political meetings in Dadabhai’s company and in this way became imbued with the progressive ideas of the British politics. It may be mentioned here that Gandhiji also met Dadabhai Naoraji during his student days in London but as there was hardly anything between them, no intimacy developed.”(Ref 2 p 14) Jinnah, who was fascinated with the Western political system, became involved in political debates and learnt the art and craft of political battles. During his stay in England, Jinnah was also involved in acting for a time and was seriously considering a career as an actor. However, he received a letter from his family informing him that his mother had passed away and asking him to return home to serve his motherland, otherwise he would be considered “a traitor to the family.”(Ref 2 p 14) Gandhi was not interested in Indian politics when in England but later in South Africa he became actively involved in fighting for the rights of Indians there. After their return to India both became involved in national politics. Jinnah was first to arrive. Being a secular intellectual and political leader, he was attracted to Congress and within a short time became a significant voice for Indians. Jinnah knew that the Indian Congress was inspired by a liberal Indian intellectual, Raja Ram 101

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

Mohan Roy, who wanted to integrate Eastern and Western cultures and was influenced by “those who were educated on western lines.”(Ref 1 p 4) Jinnah was aware that Congress not only wanted freedom from the British Empire but also sought to transform India into a secular modern state. When Gandhi arrived in India, he was already a wellknown political leader who had developed a political philosophy of non-violence and an anti-Western ideology. He shared the goal of freedom with Jinnah but their philosophies, personalities and lifestyles were very different. In spite of becoming involved in the same political struggle they were worlds apart. • Jinnah loved Western civilization while Gandhi despised it. • Jinnah admired scientific thinking while Gandhi resented the scientific approach to life. • Jinnah associated with the elites while Gandhi mingled with the masses. • Jinnah ignored religious ideology while Gandhi was preoccupied with the Hindu religion and Jain mythology. • Jinnah sought to gain independence through political means while Gandhi hoped to achieve a spiritual and cultural revolution. • Jinnah wanted India to become a secular and modern state while Gandhi believed, “India’s salvation consists in unlearning what she has learnt during the last fifty years or so. The railways, telegraphs, hospitals, lawyers, doctors and such like have to go.”(Ref 1 p 5) 102

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

Over the years, the differences between their philosophies, ideologies, lifestyles and orientations became increasingly evident. In spite of their polite social personae, the tension in their relationship was palpable from the very beginning. When Gandhi returned to India, a grand reception was arranged in his honor. “On his arrival at Bombay, Gandhiji was accorded a right royal reception from all sides. Mr. Jinnah did not lag behind in paying his respects to Gandhiji. In a Gujarati gathering, Jinnah, immaculately dressed in English clothes, made a fine speech in English welcoming him to motherland while Gandhiji, wearing typical Gujarati dress, made his reply in Gujarati. He even ventured to mildly admonish the previous speakers for speaking in English.”(Ref 1 p 39) The sparks between Gandhi and Jinnah could be felt from their first meeting. Jinnah, who considered himself a secular person and a representative of all the ethnic and religious groups of India, did not appreciate Gandhi highlighting that he was from a Muslim family. “Gandhi’s response to Jinnah’s urbane welcome was that he was ‘glad to find a Mohammedan (Jinnah) not only belonging to his own region’s sahba [council], but chairing it.’ Had he meant to be malicious rather than his usual ingenuous self, Gandhi could not have contrived a more cleverly patronizing barb, for he was not only actually insulting Jinnah, after all, just informing everyone of his minority religious identity.”(Ref 2 p 38) Jinnah’s biographer Stanley Wolpert feels that that meeting set the stage for their life long rivalry and 103

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

antagonism. “That first statement of Gandhi’s set the tone of their relationship, always at odds with deep tensions and mistrust underlying its superficially polite manners, never friendly, never cordial. They seemed always to be sparring even before they put on any gloves. It was as if, subconsciously, they recognized one another as ‘natural enemies’, rivals for national power, popularity, and charismatic control of their audience, however small or awesomely vast they might become.”(Ref 2 p 38) Jinnah and Gandhi were both inspired by the great Indian intellectual Gokhale. If Gokhale had lived longer, he might have been influential not only in modifying their attitudes but also by becoming a bridge between them; but unfortunately he died in 1915 before he could help Gandhi and Jinnah develop a cooperative bond that would establish common grounds for their political and ideological struggles. Majamdar wrote, “It was indeed a great tragedy for India as well as for Gandhiji that Gokhale died in February 1915… Perhaps Gokhale would have been a connecting link between Gandhiji and Jinnah.”(Ref 1 p 40) The first political confrontation between Jinnah and Gandhi took place when they both were involved with the politics of the Home Rule League, a party inspired by Mrs. Annie Besant, a theosophist, who was strongly motivated to help Indians in their struggle for freedom and independence. She was much impressed by Jinnah. When Gandhi returned to India, Jinnah respectfully and generously suggested that Gandhi could become the president. Other members of Home Rule League, including the secretary 104

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

Mr. Jayakar, were skeptical. They were worried Gandhi would take over the party. Jinnah tried to reassure them, hoping that Gandhi would respect the democratic tradition of the party. Gandhi was welcomed but also warned about their concerns. Gandhi reassured them that he would become a sincere member of the League and genuinely try to serve the party as well as the nation. But unfortunately the moment he became president he changed not only the name but also the guiding principles. Jinnah and other members were concerned, watching their worst nightmare coming true. They objected to the autocratic posture of Gandhi who ignored their opinions, using a heavy-handed approach. He insisted that others should either accept his changes or leave. Jinnah and many others felt insulted and humiliated. “Jinnah and some other foundation members opposed Gandhiji’s proposals. But Gandhiji as Chairman of the meeting, overruled their objections and declared in an uncompromising tone, ‘It is open to any member, be he a life-member or otherwise, to resign his membership if he thinks he cannot remain a member of the Sahba under its altered constitution’. Gandhiji’s arbitrary action in changing the name and creed of the Home Rule league was resented by Jinnah and several other prominent Leaguers who resigned from the League in protest.”(Ref 1 p 47) It became obvious to many that Gandhi, who was admired and adored by many as a spiritual leader, was not a very democratic leader in the political world. He did not negotiate or attempt to persuade; he gave ultimatums. 105

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

Such an attitude was very difficult for politicians like Jinnah to swallow, as he believed in a sincere political debate prior to making any changes in the party. The painful effects of that incident remained for a long time. “Neither Mrs. Besant nor Jinnah ever forgave Gandhiji for his destruction of the Home Rule League with all its ideals and aspirations.”(Ref 1 p 47) They believed that for Gandhi his own ego, pride and mission were more important than the feelings and dreams of other party members. It was becoming apparent to Jinnah that Gandhi was not a democratic leader and that he was using the party to enhance his personal and political agenda. After the disaster of the Home Rule League, Jinnah and Gandhi confronted each other in the Congress. Gandhi saw the Congress as a vehicle to promote his ideology, making Jinnah increasingly suspicious. And when Gandhi urged the Congress to adopt his non-violent non-cooperation movement, Jinnah felt so disillusioned that he left the Congress as well. Jinnah believed that Gandhi was playing with the emotions of young people who were naïve and gullible. He, like Rabindranath Tagore, was afraid that the non-violent processions Gandhi was advocating would lose control and become violent and that thousands of innocent human beings would be murdered or would end up in jail. “In the annual session of the Congress at Nagpur in December of 1920, the Congress itself surrendered to Gandhiji and adopted the Gandhian programme for its future activities. Henceforth, Gandhiji practically became 106

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

the Director of the Congress. This was a position which was unbearable, and unacceptable to Mohammad Ali Jinnah…he was not prepared to surrender the Congress to Gandhiji without a fight to the last ditch.”(Ref 1 p 9) Jinnah was very concerned about Gandhi’s program. He was worried that if India followed Gandhi’s ideology she would “end in a disaster.”(Ref 1 p 9) Jinnah’s resignation from the Congress was no reflection that he was not in agreement with its secular philosophy; it was more of an indication that he and Gandhi could not work together as they were unable to resolve their conflicts with each other. Each wanted power, domination and leadership and neither could be a follower of the other. They could not work cooperatively as a team. When Jinnah could not attain the leadership of the Congress he became active in the Muslim League, hoping that he could use it to achieve his goals and ideals the same way Gandhi was using the Congress to fulfill his dreams. They might have had different philosophies but they exhibited similarities in their personalities. They were determined to the point of stubbornness and as time passed, they became more and more rigid. The British found it difficult to deal with them in a democratic and rational way in order to arrive at some political consensus for the future of India. They both believed religiously in their political ideologies. At one point Gandhi visited Rabindranath Tagore in Calcutta to invite him to join his national non-cooperative non-violent movement. He was disappointed when Tagore 107

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

turned down his offer. Tagore shared his grave concerns with Gandhi and warned him that in spite of his good intentions the non-violent movement would not remain non-violent for very long because the easily manipulated masses would lose control and thousands of innocent lives would be lost. Gandhi then invited Jinnah to join his nonviolent non-cooperation movement, but Jinnah, like Tagore, also feared its potentially disastrous consequences. He bluntly told Gandhi, “Your methods have already caused splits and division in almost every institution that you have approached hitherto, and in the public life of the country…and your extreme programme has for the moment struck the imagination mostly of the inexperienced youth and the ignorant and the illiterate. All this means complete disorganization and chaos. What the consequence of this may be, I shudder to contemplate.”(Ref 1 p 81) Jinnah believed that he could provide better leadership to Indians by becoming active in the Muslim League, not realizing that in the long run he would be jumping from the frying pan into the fire. He failed to appreciate that political systems and parties are sometimes more powerful than their own leaders. Jinnah wanted to make the Muslim League liberal and secular, but in the end, the Muslim League was to change him far more than he could change it. Even after becoming active in the Muslim League, Jinnah was for the longest time a great supporter of Hindu Muslim unity. He worked hard to bring the League and Congress together on secular grounds, urging both parties 108

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

to work together to achieve independence and freedom for their common motherland, India. As a President of the Muslim league in 1924 he stated, “The League is not in any way going to adopt a policy or programme which will, in the least degree as far as I can judge, be antagonistic to the Indian National Congress… On the contrary, I believe it will proceed on lines which are best calculated to further general national interests, not forgetting the particular interests of the Muslim community.”(Ref 1 p 103) Jinnah had encouraged Muslims to cooperate with Hindus. He had expressed this sentiment in his presidential speech in Lucknow a few years earlier. “Towards the Hindus our attitude should be of goodwill and brotherly feelings. Cooperation to the cause of our motherland should be our guiding principle. India’s real progress can only be achieved by a true understanding and harmonious relations between the two great sister communities.”(Ref 1 p 36) It is ironic that Jinnah never realized that if he could not resolve his differences with Gandhi, there was small likelihood that their respective parties, who faithfully followed their autocratic leaders, could resolve their conflicts. It is tragic that Gandhi and Jinnah, because of their perpetual antagonism, pushed each other to uncompromisingly extreme positions and finally into political trenches where nobody could extract them to find mutually agreeable solutions. As Jinnah became active in the Muslim League, he had to face his party’s inner conflicts. He had to deal with fundamentalist Muslims who were against him and who were 109

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

trying to convince him that Muslims and Hindus could not live together peacefully as they belonged to two different nations. Jinnah kept ignoring such suggestions. Allama Mohammad Iqbal was one who was disappointed in the Lucknow Pact in which the Muslim League and the Congress had promised to work together. He felt it was a bad omen for Indian Muslims. He believed in the twonation concept, and for a few years worked hard to convince Jinnah that Muslims’ rights were not safe in the political environment of the Hindu majority. Eventually, Jinnah changed his position. On one hand he was swayed by extremist Muslims whose religious identity was more important than their cultural identity—they were more proud of being Muslims than being Indians; and on the other hand he became more and more disillusioned by the Congress, especially Gandhi. He started perceiving the Congress as a Hindu rather than a secular national party and he also convinced himself that he was the only genuine representative of Indian Muslims. Muslims who were members of the Congress Party were appalled by his position. Along with his political views, Jinnah’s social image changed dramatically. The man who formerly wore threepiece suits and silk ties started wearing sheervani [long black buttoned coat] and a cap which became famous as the “Jinnah cap.” Jinnah had been repeatedly reminded by many conservative Muslims that he neither looked nor acted like a good Muslim. In many Muslim League meetings he had to face humiliating situations, such as the 110

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

occasion in 1915 when Maulana Hasrat Mohani along with other members reminded Jinnah to speak Urdu and wear Muslim attire. Wolpert writes of members shouting at Jinnah reminding him, “‘If you are a Mohammedan, you ought to appear like a Mohammedan. The Holy Quran asks you to dress like a Mohammedan. You must speak the Mohammedan tongue. You pose as a Mohammedan leader, but you can never be a Mohammedan leader.’ A number of bearded Pathans in the audience rushed the dais, shouting angrily in Pushto. Hasrat Mohani called Urdu ‘the only proper language’ in which to hold Muslim League proceedings.”(Ref 2 p 40) Similar anti-Western revivalist sentiments would be hurled at Jinnah for the rest of his life, even after he was hailed as the League’s Qaid-I-Azam [Great Leader]. It is unfortunate that Gandhi and Jinnah, as two lawyers, two masters of negotiation, could not resolve their conflicts—their personal antagonism, resentment and bitterness spilled over into their social and political lives, affecting many of their followers. Common people, like children, started to act out the conflicts of their political parents, the Fathers of the Nation. Until the 1930s, Jinnah remained hopeful that Muslims and Hindus, League and Congress could work together. But he became so disillusioned by the fundamentalist Muslims of the Muslim League and the fundamentalist Hindus of the Congress that he decided to resign from the political world and lead a private life as a lawyer in England. He believed that the tensions and conflicts between the two communities and the two parties were so 111

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

grave that he could not play any positive and constructive role. Jinnah shared his depression, desperation and sense of resignation in his speech in Aligarh. He said, “The Mussalmans were like dwellers in No Man’s Land: they were led by either the flunkeys of the British Government or the camp followers of the Congress. Whenever attempts were made to organize the Muslims, toadies and flunkeys on the one hand, and the traitors in the Congress camp on the other, frustrated the efforts. I began to feel that neither could I change the Hindu mentality; nor could I make Mussalmans realize the precarious position. I felt so disappointed and depressed that I decided to settle down in London. Not that I did not love India, but I felt so utterly helpless.”(Ref 1 p 146) It is obvious from the language of the speech that Jinnah, who was always proud of his respectful parliamentary language, had become angry, resentful and sarcastic. His use of words like “flunkeys” and “traitors” is a good indication that he was sliding into a painful phase of political depression, emotional disillusionment and social withdrawal. As time passed Jinnah recovered, and when many Muslim leaders including Allama Iqbal asked him to come back to India and fight for the rights of Indian Muslims, he agreed. Iqbal told him that he was the only Muslim leader who could bring the Muslims safely out of the political storm. Finally Jinnah returned and injected the Muslim League with new energy, escalating his fight for the Muslim cause. He had finally accepted the role of Muslim leader 112

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

and embraced Allama Iqbal’s two-nation concept, a proposition that he had been dead set against two decades earlier. Having adopted this personal resolve, Jinnah began trying to convince the Muslims of India that their rights and privileges would not be safe and secure under Hindu domination. He believed that India’s Muslim minority had been deprived of their rights, and needed affirmative action for its survival. He portrayed the Congress as a Hindu party. There were many Indian Muslims who remained unconvinced by Jinnah’s argument as they saw many Muslim intellectuals and political leaders as honorable members of the Congress, including its president, Abul Kalam Azad, a well-respected Muslim scholar. There was a time when the Muslim League had only a few thousand members. Gandhi told Jinnah repeatedly that he was representing only a minority of Muslims, as the majority of Muslims were members of the Congress or groups like the Unionist Party which believed in HinduMuslim unity and opposed any partition of India. Jinnah and Gandhi ultimately became angry rivals and bitter enemies as Jinnah’s dream of Pakistan became a threat to Gandhi’s dream of a free United India. Their dreams started to clash and turned into each other’s political nightmares. Finally in 1940 Jinnah and the Muslim League publicly announced their plan for a separate state for Indian Muslims. “Then at the Lahore Session of the Muslim League in March, 1940, he made the formal demand for the creation of a home-land for the Muslims where the writ of 113

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

Gandhi or the Gandhian Congress would not run.”(Ref 1 p 11) In the annual session of the Muslim League in Lahore Jinnah declared that “Islam and Hinduism are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are in fact quite distinct social orders, and it is a dream that the Hindus and the Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has gone far beyond the limits and is the cause of most of our troubles and will lead to destruction, if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and the Muslims belonged to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literature….” The Lahore resolution was a significant milestone for Jinnah and the Muslim League, the first time they had taken a firm stand to put their plan into action. Jinnah was now able to articulate his dream fully and clearly. He sought a separate homeland for Indian Muslims in “the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority, as in North Western and Eastern Zones of India, should be grouped to constitute ‘independent States’ in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign.”(Ref 1 p 159) After that resolution a major shift occurred in Jinnah’s attitude. His latent anger and hostility came to the surface. Majumdar highlights that change in these words, “Jinnah was now on the warpath. Intense hatred of the Congress and Gandhi took possession of his soul… With the passing of the Lahore Resolution of 1940, old Nationalist Jinnah, the great sentinel of the Indian National Congress, the Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity, began 114

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

a new and tragic chapter in his life. The new Jinnah proved to be a menace both for India and the Indian Mussalmans. It is perhaps one of the most tragic events of Indian history.”(Ref 1 p 159) Jinnah finally gave up his dream of becoming a secular leader of India and chose to be a Muslim leader of Pakistan. Such a shift stirred him up emotionally and intensified the conflict between him and Gandhi. Over the years Gandhi and Jinnah had realized that they were both heavyweight political leaders, admired and adored by millions. One had become Mahatma and the other Qaid-e-azam, but their heavyweight championship bout, which played itself out for thirty years, meant upheaval, pain and death for millions of Indians. In 1944 Gandhi made one more attempt to engage in a dialogue with Jinnah about his philosophy and dream of a united India. Jinnah accepted the invitation hoping that he would convince Gandhi of his two-nation theory. They talked around and around in circles and finally ended the meeting having made no progress. Wavell wrote sarcastically in his journal, “The two great mountains have met and not even a ridiculous mouse has emerged.”(Ref 2 p 236) Jinnah seemed baffled by Gandhi, and although they spoke the same mother tongue, they were worlds apart. Jinnah was obviously frustrated with Gandhi’s mysterious personality and expressed his confusion, “When it suits him, he represents nobody, he can talk in an individual capacity, he is even a four-anna member of Congress, he undertakes a fast to decide the political issue, he reduces 115

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

himself to zero and consults his inner voice; yet when it suits him, he is the supreme dictator of the Congress! He thinks he represents whole of India. Mr. Gandhi is an enigma…”(Ref 2 p 248) It is interesting to note also that the Congress used to call Jinnah “The Dictator of Malabar Hill”(Ref 2 p 177) and Lord Linlithgow once remarked, “…Jinnah would be quite as bad a master as Gandhi…”(Ref 2 p 222) Jinnah, who all his life fought his political battles with the Congress and the British in a peaceful way, became so frustrated, desperate and angry that he lost control. When he realized that he was not going to gain power through peaceful means, he accepted the route of violence. It was a shocking experience for me to read that the Qaid-e-Azam gave his blessing to violence. He wanted to teach Congress and the British a lesson and in so doing he risked the lives of thousands of innocent men women and children. For a leader who was proud to lead “a real political movement based on real political principles” it was a sad state of affairs to resort to violence. On July 29, 1946, he stated: “…the time has come for the Muslim nation to resort to Direct Action to achieve Pakistan, to assert their just rights, to vindicate their honor and to get rid of the present British slavery and the contemplated future Caste-Hindu domination.”(Ref 2 p 283) Jinnah gave his blessing to the use of violence: “We have taken a most historic decision. Never before in the whole life history of the Muslim League did we do anything except by constitutional methods and constitutional talks. We are today forced into position by a move in which both the Congress 116

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

and Britain have participated. We have been attacked on two fronts… Today we have said good-bye to constitutions and constitutional methods. Throughout the painful negotiations, the two parties with whom we bargained held a pistol at us, one with power and machine-guns behind it, and the other with non-cooperation and the threat to launch mass civil disobedience. The situation must be met. We also have a pistol.”(Ref 2 p 283) It is amazing that Jinnah’s anger towards Gandhi was of the same intensity as it was towards the British Empire. He put British oppression and Gandhi’s non-cooperation in the same category. Jinnah wanted to mobilize the masses but he did not realize that the masses were already full of anger and resentment and bitterness. They were ready to shed blood. Jinnah may or may not have realized that by making that speech he had given people a license to kill. After that speech India witnessed one of the bloodiest days in a long time. The peace-loving Jinnah had finally said goodbye to democratic and constitutional methods of bringing about political change. He was no longer a believer in a peaceful evolution; he wanted to incite a bloody revolution. Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre, in their book, Freedom at Midnight, sketch out the massacre of August 16th, 1946. “The event that served to catalyze into violence the building rivalry of India’s Hindu and Moslem communities took place on August 16, 1946… At dawn Moslem mobs howling in a quasi-religious fervor came bursting from their slums, waving clubs, iron bars, 117

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

shovels, any instrument capable of smashing in a human skull. They came in answer to a call issued by the Muslim League, proclaiming August 16 ‘Direct Action Day’ to prove to Britain and the Congress Party that India’s Moslems were prepared ‘to get Pakistan for themselves by Direct Action’ if necessary. “They savagely beat to a pulp any Hindus in their path and left the bodies in the city’s open gutters. The terrified police simply disappeared. Soon tall pillars of black smoke stretched up from a score of spots in the city, Hindu bazaars in full blaze. “Later, the Hindu mobs came storming out of their neighborhoods, looking for defenseless Moslems to slaughter. Never, in all its violent history had Calcutta known twenty-four hours as savage, as packed with human viciousness. Like waterlogged logs, scores of bloated cadavers bobbed down the Hooghly River toward the sea. “Other corpses, savagely mutilated, littered the city streets.”(Ref 3 p 35) That was the day when religious differences became more important than racial, ethnic, linguistic and cultural similarities. Those differences became so inflamed that innocent people turned bloodthirsty. Jinnah’s Direct Action was the last nail in the coffin of Hindu-Muslim unity. War was declared between Muslims and Hindus and after that, there was no hope for reconciliation. Jinnah had given his final ultimatum to Gandhi, Congress and the British Empire to either give him Pakistan or prepare for a civil war. 118

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

The last chapter of the Gandhi-Jinnah relationship and the future of India was written when Viceroy Lord Mountbatten arrived in Delhi on March 22, 1947 with a special mission to meet with the leaders of the Muslim League and the Indian Congress and finalize the plans for handing over power to Indians. He met with all the leaders separately and finalized the plans, seeking political consensus. When he left England he was warned, “The cost of denying them the state they wanted would be the bloodiest civil war in Asian history.”(Ref 3 p 8) Unfortunately all his negotiations failed. When Mountbatten discussed the issue with Gandhi, the Mahatma was dead against the proposed partition. He had stated many times that India would be divided over his dead body. When Gandhi realized that Mountbatten was leaning towards partition to please Jinnah he offered a new solution to the problem. Collins and Lapierre wrote, “So desperate was he [Gandhi] to avoid partition that he was prepared to give the Muslims the baby instead of cutting it in half. Place three hundred million Hindus under Muslim rule, he told Mountbatten, by asking his rival Jinnah and his Moslem League to form a government. Then hand over power to that government. “‘Give Jinnah all of India instead of just the part he wants…’ “‘Whatever makes you think your own Congress Party will accept?’ Mountbatten asked. “‘Congress,’ Gandhi replied, ‘wants above all else to avoid partition. They will do anything to prevent it.’”(Ref 3 p 111) 119

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

But when Mountbatten approached Nehru and Patel about Gandhi’s proposal, they were shocked that Gandhi would suggest such an absurd idea. “He [Mountbatten] could not budge Nehru and Patel. There was a limit to the price they were prepared to pay to keep India united, and handing over power to their foe Jinnah exceeded it.”(Ref 3 p 118) Since Nehru and Patel, the two major leaders of Congress, dismissed Gandhi’s offer, his last attempt to prevent separation of India and Pakistan was aborted. Patel and Nehru felt betrayed by Gandhi, believing that in the last round of their marathon battle, he had chosen Jinnah over them. During their many series of dialogues Jinnah gave Mountbatten the hardest time. They met for long discussions but to no avail. Mountbatten was so frustrated with Jinnah that he called him “a psychopathic case, hell-bent on his Pakistan.”(Ref 3 p 125) There was a moment in the dialogue when Mountbatten lost all patience with Jinnah and addressed him bluntly. “If you don’t nod your head [in the ceremonial hand-over], Mr. Jinnah, then you’re through, and there will be nothing more I can do for you. Everything will collapse. This is not a threat. It’s a prophecy. If you don’t nod your head at that moment, my usefulness here will be ended, you will have lost your Pakistan, and as far as I am concerned, you can go to hell.” Finally when Mountbatten presented the final offer of partition of India and birth of Pakistan, Jinnah cooperated. Collins and Lapierre documented that historical nod in these words, “With that brief, almost imperceptible ges120

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

ture, a nation of forty-five million human beings had received its final sanction.”(Ref 3 p 189) Although Mountbatten finally agreed on Pakistan to please Jinnah, he still insisted that it made no sense at all. In Collins and Lapierre’s words, “…no aspect of partition was more illogical than the fact that Jinnah’s Pakistan would deliver barely half of Indian Moslems from the alleged inequities of Hindu majority rule which had justified the state in the first place. The remaining Moslems were scattered throughout the rest of India so widely that it was impossible to separate them. Islands in a Hindu sea, they would be the first victims of a conflict between the countries, India’s Moslem hostages to Pakistan’s good behavior. Indeed, even after the amputation, India would still harbor almost fifty million Moslems.”(Ref 3 p 129) For Jinnah to fulfill his dream of a separate homeland for Muslims, …thousands of innocent men, women and children lost their lives …thousands were forced to cross the new border and risk their lives to immigrate to Pakistan …millions were left to live in India as a minority and …the provinces of Punjab and Bengal were divided. The creation of Pakistan was a mixed blessing. On one hand Muslims were celebrating but on the other, Sikhs were angered at the division of their province of Punjab. They were so bitter that there was a “Sikh plan to 121

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

assassinate Jinnah on the day Pakistan was born.”(Ref 2 p 341) Mountbatten was so worried about Jinnah’s life that he travelled with him to offer him some security. The Day of Independence was also a day of bloodshed for Punjab. It was a great and painful reminder of what had happened exactly a year previously on August 16th in Calcutta when thousands of innocent people were mercilessly slaughtered. The birth of Pakistan, the dream of Allama Iqbal, had turned into a bloody nightmare by the city’s “committing suicide.”(Ref 3 p 249) “In the Punjab they already had started. The roads and railroads of what had been the best-administered province in India were unsafe. Sikh hordes roamed the countryside like bands of Apaches falling on Moslem villages or Moslem neighborhoods. A particular savagery characterized their killings. The circumcised penises of their Moslem male victims were hacked off and stuffed into their mouths or into the mouths of murdered Moslem women.”(Ref 3 p 245) There were thousands of killings on both sides. “India’s joyful Independence Day was indeed a day of horror for the Punjab.”(Ref 3) I find it interesting that Gandhi is presented in history books as a secular leader even though he was deeply religious, and believed in Hindu philosophy and Jain mythology. He was a practising Hindu who abstained from meat, sex, cigarettes and alcohol in his day-to-day life, whereas Jinnah with his secular philosophy and lifestyle has been presented as a Muslim leader. Collins and Lapierre comment about the irony of Jinnah being the 122

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

Father of the Muslim nation, “A more improbable leader of India’s Moslem masses could hardly be imagined. The only thing Moslem about Mohammad Ali Jinnah was the fact that his parents happened to be Moslem. He drank, ate pork, religiously shaved his beard each morning, and just as religiously avoided the mosque each Friday. God and Koran had no place in Jinnah’s vision of the world. His political foe Gandhi knew more verses of the Moslem holy book than he did.”(Ref 3 p 121) Neither Gandhi nor Jinnah lived long after the independence of India. Gandhi became very depressed and lonely, abandoned by his friends and disciples. Patel and Nehru excluded him from the planning of the future of India. They envisioned India as a modern industrialized state and they very well knew that Gandhi despised modernization and industrialization. There were many Hindu fundamentalists who shouted “Gandhi Murdabad” [Death to Gandhi] as they believed he supported Muslims. In January 1948, while he was on his way to offer public prayers, he was assassinated, shot by a Hindu fanatic. When Jinnah heard the news he stated, “He was one of the greatest men produced by the Hindu community.” How ironic it must have seemed to him that an orthodox Hindu should have killed his most intransigent opponent, believing the Mahatma an “agent of Pakistan” and a “Muslim-lover.”(Ref 3 p 358) Reviewing Gandhi and Jinnah’s relationship from a psychological point of view, I found it striking how the two men affected each other. When people are involved in 123

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

intense emotional relationships, whether positive or negative, full of love, jealousy or hate, they transform each other’s personalities. They change the other’s attitude because to stay in the relationship they have to identify and internalize each other. Enemies can influence each other as much as lovers. When I look at Jinnah and Gandhi’s relationship which spanned four decades, I am amazed and intrigued at how much Jinnah transformed over the years. In the beginning of their political battle he criticized Gandhi for the following characteristics. He believed Gandhi was • deeply religious and mixed religion with politics • appealing to uneducated youngsters and the gullible masses • provoking violence in the name of non-cooperation and had an autocratic attitude. Gandhi never agreed with Jinnah’s opinion of him, as he believed himself to be a liberal, secular and peace-loving leader. He thought Jinnah was jealous of his popularity and coveted his power and fame. It is interesting for me to see how Jinnah changed over the years, not only in his style of dress, but also in his political ideology and strategy. He became more autocratic, mixed religion with politics, and moreover endorsed violence to attain his personal and community goals. In the end he did all those things for which he criticized Gandhi. British politicians found him as difficult as Gandhi to deal with in a rational, logical and objective way. Both of them 124

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

had developed a strong religious attitude in their political beliefs. In Gandhi’s and Jinnah’s relationship, the transformation that fascinated me the most was that in the beginning of their political battle, the similarities in their political ideology were as remarkable as the differences in their personalities, while at the end of their lives, the similarities of their personalities were as striking as the differences in their political ideals. They were like an unhappily married political couple. Their separation was painful and their divorce a traumatic experience for their parties, the Muslim League and the Congress. Dividing their assets and property cost many their lives, pride and honor. Jinnah did not long survive Gandhi. Alongside the political crises he was also dealing with a diagnosis of tuberculosis which he had kept secret. He had feared that if Congress and the British Government had learned of his fatal illness, they might have stalled the political process and he would have died without becoming the Governor General of Pakistan. Jinnah died on September 11, 1948. When I review the reasons and circumstances of the partition of India I am struck by the emergence of intense anger, resentment, bitterness and hatred between the Muslim League and the Congress, and between Muslims and Hindus. Abul Kalam Azad, a well-respected Muslim scholar stated, “The basis of partition was enmity between Hindus and Muslims.” Azad was one of those Indian 125

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

Muslim scholars and political leaders who, unlike Iqbal and Jinnah, doubted that the creation of Pakistan would solve Muslim problems. He believed that in a multicultural community like India, creating a Muslim state would create more problems for Muslims than it would solve. He wrote in his political autobiography, “Mr. Jinnah and his followers did not seem to realize that geography was against them. Indian Muslims were distributed in a way which made it impossible to form a separate State in a consolidated area. The Muslim majority areas were in the northwest and northeast. These two regions have no point of physical contact. People in these areas are completely different from one another in every aspect except religion.”(Ref 4 p 248) Azad questions the notion that religion alone can be the basis of a state. Analyzing the history of the Muslims he wrote, “It is one of the greatest frauds on the people to suggest that religious affinity can unite areas which are geographically, economically, linguistically and culturally different. It is true that Islam sought to establish a society that transcends racial, linguistic, economic and political frontiers. History has, however, proved that after the first few decades or at the most after the first century, Islam was not able to unite all the Muslim countries on the basis of Islam alone.”(Ref 4 p 248) Over the years, as millions of Pakistanis and Indians celebrated their Independence Day each August 15th, I have reflected on the political wisdom of our leaders. I believe that it is imperative that the people of India and 126

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

Pakistan review their historic past in an objective way. For the future peace of Asia and the rest of the world, Indians and Pakistanis, political leaders as well as common people need to learn to live as friendly neighbors. I can envision a time when the masses on both sides of the border will realize that the division of Punjab and Bengal in 1947 was unnatural, because for national unity, language and culture are just as significant as religion. When will we realize that to live in harmony, we need multi-religious, multi-lingual and multi-cultural communities and countries like Canada? To live in peace we need to rise above our religious, ethnic, linguistic and racial differences and discover the common bond of humanity. We need to break down the walls of prejudice and ignorance and build bridges of compassion, understanding and care. We need to create communities in which all citizens enjoy equal rights and privileges. Until we are able to transcend our tribal mentality and the division into us and them, we will not be able to break the cycle of violence. We must choose leaders who are committed to creating secular humanistic societies. When I reviewed the history of India and the massacre of 1947, I found two opinions, one from Lord Mountbatten, the last Viceroy of India, and the other from Abul Kalam Azad, who was the president of the Indian Congress before Partition, and afterwards the Minister of Education. Although Mountbatten presided over the partition of India, he believed the decision was insane. “Partition,” Mountbatten wrote “is sheer madness…” and “no-one 127

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

would ever induce me to agree to it were it not for this fantastic communal madness that has seized everybody and leaves no other course open.” “The responsibility for this mad decision must be placed squarely on Indian shoulders in the eyes of the world, for one day they will bitterly regret the decision they are about to make.”(Ref 3 p 142) This was Mountbatten’s opinion in 1947. Ten years after Partition Azad wondered about the wisdom of the partition of India and the creation of Pakistan, “The new State of Pakistan is a fact. It is to the interest of India and Pakistan that they should develop friendly relations and act in cooperation with one another. Any other courses of action can lead only to greater trouble, suffering and misfortune. Some people hold that what has happened was inevitable. Others equally strongly believe that what has happened is wrong and could have been avoided. We cannot say today which reading is correct. History alone will decide whether we had acted wisely and correctly.”(Ref 4 p 248) Reviewing the details of Gandhi and Jinnah’s relationship was a painful and disturbing experience. It is difficult to believe that Mahatma Gandhi, the prophet of peace and non-violence, could have said to Lord Mountbatten in 1947, “Don’t partition India. Don’t divide India, even if refusing to do so means shedding ‘rivers of blood.’”(Ref 3 p 110) I was similarly astounded when I read that Jinnah, the Qaid-e-Azam had stated, “We shall have India divided or we shall have India destroyed.”(Ref 3 p 36) After reading the life stories of Jinnah and Gandhi, I believe that both men played a significant role in the massacre of 1947. Over the 128

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

years scholars have been reviewing the philosophies and personalities of the two leaders, and “there are many who think that Gandhian politics and Gandhian political techniques were as responsible for the vivisection of India as Jinnah’s two-nation theory.”(Ref 1 p 2)

REFERENCES Ref. 1 Majumdar, S. K. Jinnah and Gandhi… Their Role in India’s Quest for Freedom. Calcutta: Minerva Associates, 2000. Ref. 2 Wolpert, Stanley. Jinnah of Pakistan. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Ref. 3 Collins, Larry, and Lapierre, Dominique. Freedom at Midnight. New York: Avon Publishers, 1975. Ref. 4 Azad Maulana Abul Kalam. India Wins Freedom. Calcutta: Orient Longman Limited, 1988.

129

KAMAL ATATURK

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

— KAMAL ATATURK — A SECULAR NATIONALIST

Kamal Ataturk, the creator of modern Turkey, has been one of the most controversial personalities of the Muslim world in the twentieth century. Some admire him while others despise him. In some quarters he is considered a role model for Muslim leaders and in others, the enemy of Islam. It was he who put the last nail into the coffin of the centuries-old Ottoman dynasty and gave birth to the Republic of Turkey in 1923. While researching Kamal Ataturk’s biography and essays on his personality, philosophy and political strategy I was intrigued by a number of personal and political dimensions of his life. Kamal Ataturk was born in 1881 in Turkey into a working class family. His mother Zubeida was affectionate and his father, Ali Reza, hardworking. Unfortunately Ali Reza died of tuberculosis when Kamal Ataturk was only seven years old. Thereafter he was raised by his mother and his uncle. From his early childhood he was quite rebellious and it was very difficult for his mother and teachers to control and discipline him. There were times when he ran away and refused to return to school as he had problems 133

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

with authority figures. Finally his uncle suggested that he join the army, hoping that the military discipline might control his wild personality. Ataturk liked the idea of becoming an officer, wearing a uniform and giving orders. Army life suited him—he graduated with honors in 1905 with the rank of Captain. He continued to find himself in trouble as he was very passionate and hottempered and refused to obey his superiors. He was a good debater and brutally honest, with no regard for other people’s feelings. As a teenager he joined a nationalist group, Vatan where, though discussions with its members, he formed his nationalistic philosophy: Turks must be in charge of their future. Kamal Ataturk was strongly opposed to foreign powers, be they British, French, German or Russian, whose aims were to divide and destroy Turkey, whom they considered “the sick man of Europe.” It angered him that the Sultan and his family in their palaces and the religious fundamentalists in the mosques and monasteries lived isolated from modern world trends; he was convinced that the royal family and the religious groups were obstacles in any movement for common Turks to regain their pride, prestige, national freedom and cultural independence. Ataturk believed that Muslim rulers, over the centuries, were no different than the European rulers who subjugated independent countries into their religious and political colonies. He resented people discarding their mother tongues and praying in Arabic, which he considered a colonial language. He wanted Turks to be politically free and 134

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

culturally independent; his dream was of a secular and strong Turkey where Turks could decide their own future. When his views came to the attention of the government and the Sultan, he was thrown in jail where he endured harsh conditions. His biographer H.C. Armstrong wrote, “With the other members of the Vatan, Mustafa Kemal was shut up in the Red Prison of Stambul… He was isolated from the others and placed in solitary confinement… Week after week he was shut up in a narrow cell which was dirty and verminous. The only light and air came from a small barred window far up in a wall.”(Ref 1 p 30) After Kamal Ataturk was released from jail, he became even more determined to start a revolution. But he was also more cautious as “The secret police had marked him down as dangerous.”(Ref 1 p 34) Young Ataturk fought in many battles where his leadership and courage were exemplary. He was the only officer to fight with his soldiers on the front lines. He had a firm conviction that he would survive and each time, luck was in his favor. The more battles he fought, the more he convinced others of his leadership qualities. “Before he was thirty he was chief of staff to the 3rd Army in Macedonia.” (Ref 1 p 43) As time passed Ataturk came to the attention of the army generals and the royal family. Believing he planned to overthrow the government through a coup d’etat, they kept him under close police surveillance. Ataturk shared with his close friends his antipathy towards the religious leaders and the Sultan and his plan to transform Turkey into a 135

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

model secular state. He believed that if the Turks were provided with an opportunity they would get rid of all the oppressive imperialistic and colonial powers. “There are no oppressors nor any oppressed. There are only those who allow themselves to be oppressed. The Turks are not among these.”(Ref 2 p 2) In time Kamal Ataturk, with the help of other officers and politicians, formed his own Green Army. A civil war ensued between the Nationalists who were called Kamalists, the followers of Kamal, and the government army officers. In the beginning the Kamalists suffered many losses and were forced to hide in the mountains as guerrilla warriors, but gradually the Sultan’s influence decreased and Kamal Ataturk became ever more powerful and popular. “He galvanized the simple Turkish soldier with a new courage. They were ready to follow him to hell.”(Ref 1 p 80) Gradually Kamal Ataturk transformed into a mythological figure and became the leader of the People’s Party. Once Ataturk had gained sufficient support from the political and military authorities, he ousted the Sultan and sent him and his family into exile in Switzerland. In 1923 he became first president of the Republic of Turkey. He immediately started to make changes in the civil and criminal laws and wrote a new constitution. He took a number of drastic steps to change the lifestyle of all Turks. The first was to require men to wear hats rather than fezes and women to wear modern clothes instead of traditional robes and veils, for a modern Western look. The second was to change the alphabet from Arabic to Latin letters, a major linguistic revolution. 136

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

The third was to abolish Arabic prayers and require people to pray in their mother tongue. He insisted that even in mosques the call for prayers, the azan, must be in Turkish. He insisted Allah be called by his Turkish name, Tanri, and in the azan, Allah-o-Akbar be replaced with Tanri Uludur.(Ref 3) No other Muslim country dared to take such a radical step. The final step was to separate religion and politics, the mosque and the state. Ataturk believed that religion was a private affair and not part of national politics. He stated in 1924, “State and Religion must be separated. The Republic of Turkey must finally become a secular state.”(Ref 1 p 4) Ataturk had no respect for religion, believing that all organized religions were cultural dinosaurs with no place in the modern world. He saw their moral and ethical codes as obsolete, and believed that religion in general and Islam in particular was a hindrance to progress and modernization. He said, “Islam, this theology of an immoral Arab, is a dead thing…possibly it might have suited tribes of nomads in the desert. It is no good for a modern progressive state.”(Ref 2 p 12) He sought to free Turks from the chains of religious thought, behaviors and traditions. Ataturk believed that religious fundamentalist maulanas had used Islam to declare ordinary Muslims sinners and had made them inhibited. He considered religion a poison that had been killing the soul of the nation for centuries. “For five hundred years these rules and theories of an Arab sheik and the interpretations of generations of 137

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

lazy, good-for-nothing priests have decided the civil and criminal law of Turkey.”(Ref 1 p 241) Ataturk believed that religious zealots controlled people through scriptures which they proclaimed as divine revelations. As an atheist he believed that all religions and scriptures were man-made. “God’s revelation? There was no God. That was one of the chains by which the priests and bad rulers bound the people down.”(Ref 1 241) He had seen religious leaders declaring all cultural and artistic activities as sin, their pronouncements undermining the progress of Muslims. Lord Kinross noted, “For Kemal, Islam and civilization were a contradiction in terms.”(Ref 4) Ataturk was of the opinion that once those chains of religious inhibitions were broken, people would be free to enjoy fine arts, music and dancing Ataturk’s criticism of religion provoked strong resistance from traditional religious groups, especially the fundamentalists. But he was ruthless with them, remaining resolute in his pursuit of a secular state. Ataturk realized that although he had fought many battles to gain Turkish independence, he had to focus on education to build the country. “Following the military triumph we accomplished by bayonets, weapons and blood, we shall strive to win victories in such fields as culture, scholarship, science and economics…the enduring benefits of victories depend only on the existence of an army of education.”(Ref 3 p 2) Ataturk was very committed to the issues of legal rights for all citizens, especially peasants and women. His political model was not only secular but also socialistic. 138

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

In his first few years as president, he had acted democratically, but after several assassination attempts, had to reassess his policies. He realized that religious maulanas were taking advantage of their new political freedom. The conflict reached a climax when the Kurds, led by their Mahdi who wanted to oust the satanic government of Ataturk, declared war. “Late in December 1930 a certain dervish Sheik Mermed, declaring himself to be the Mahdi, came to save Turkey from the black impiety of Mustafa Kemal and his Republic…” “The Kurds followed the Mahdi into the battle and fought fiercely. They had invented the ‘Blind Man’s Court Martial’. Before it every Turk captured was summarily tried and brutally mutilated.”(Ref 1 p 325) For Ataturk that was the last straw. His patience came to an abrupt end and he reacted strongly and brutally, fighting fire with fire. “Ruthlessly all Turkish Kurdistan was laid to waste; villages were burned, animals and crops destroyed, women and children raped and murdered. Forty-six of the Kurdish chiefs were sentenced to be publicly hanged.”(Ref 2 p 8) The enlightened leader had been pushed into revealing his dark side. In 1932 he asked every Turk to adopt a family name and for himself, he chose Ataturk [Father of the Turks]. Ataturk experienced health problems all his life. He drank excessively and suffered numerous episodes of melancholia. He died in 1938 of cirrhosis of the liver. Ataturk’s legacy of a secular state has remained a source of controversy in most of the Muslim world. Some Muslims blame him for depriving Turks of their Arabic 139

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

inheritance. Others hope that other Muslim countries will follow his example and liberate themselves from Middle Eastern Arabic colonization and rediscover their national, linguistic and cultural roots. Many Muslims consider him the enemy of Islam. “It was his cruelty and sadistic treatment of Muslims that makes him stand out as one of the worst enemies of God.”(Ref 2 p 9) There are others who believe that because of Ataturk, Turkey became the role model for other nations. “The first Moslem nation to become a Republic, Turkey has served since the early 1920s as a model for Moslem and non-Moslem nations in the emerging world.”(Ref 5) Both Iranian leader Raza Shah Pahlavi and Pakistani leader Pervaiz Musharraf have found Ataturk a source of inspiration. It therefore seems quite paradoxical that in the 1930s the Muslims of India were sacrificing their lives to create a Muslim country by embracing the same religious traditions that in their neighborhood Ataturk was working hard to replace. While Indian Muslims were marrying Islam, Turkish Muslims were divorcing it.

REFERENCES Ref. 1 Armstrong, H. C. Grey Wolf: Mustafa Kemal. USA: Ayer, 1972. Ref. 2 Juferi, Mohd and Elfie, Nieshaem. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk: The Enemy of Islam. Kamal Ataturk Archives, Internet. Ref. 3 Time Magazine Jan 9, 1933. Ref. 4 Kinross, Lord. Ataturk, The Rebirth of a Nation. 1965. Ref. 5 Ataturk… Creator of Modern Turkey. Archives of Kamal Ataturk, Internet. Ref. 6 Reminiscences of Ataturk.Translated by Onder Renkliyindirim. Istanbul: Metro, 1985.

140

NELSON MANDELA

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

— NELSON MANDELA— A VIOLENT PEACEMAKER

February 11, 1990 was a historic day not only for Nelson Mandela but also for South Africa and the world. Mandela, who, twenty-seven years earlier had been imprisoned by the South African Government on charges of terrorism and attempted overthrow of the government, was set free. During his nearly 10,000 days of imprisonment, world opinion had changed and Mandela was perceived as a prophet of peace and justice. On that day thousands of people were waiting outside the prison to greet him, while around the world, millions from all races, cultures, classes and religions watched this historic moment on television. The whole experience was so surrealistic that when Mandela was asked the next day how he felt when he left the prison he said, “I must confess that I am unable to describe my emotions. I was completely overwhelmed by the enthusiasm. It is something I did not expect. I would be merely rationalizing if I told you that I am able to describe my own feelings. It was breathtaking. That’s all I can say.”(Ref 1 p 214) While I was watching the news on television I pondered: 143

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

• • • • •

Is Mandela a violent man or a peace-loving person? Why did the government of South Africa keep him in jail for a quarter of a century? On what grounds did the South African court judge him? What inspired Mandela to create a militant organization? Can someone be a symbol of violence and a prophet of peace at the same time?

To answer these questions I studied the autobiography he had begun while in prison and completed after he received his Nobel Peace Prize, the speeches he had delivered before he went to jail, and those from after he was released. Carefully reading all such documents threw light on those questions. By studying the evolution of his personality, philosophy and politics I became aware that there were two traditions that merged together to give birth to Mandela’s ideology of African Nationalism. They were: AFRICAN TRIBAL HERITAGE Mandela was introduced to African traditions by his father who was the well-respected chief of his tribe. Mandela’s first few years were spent in the traditional tribal environment. Later on when he began to study African history, he came to understand the struggles of his forefathers, and sacrifices made for the freedom of future generations. Mandela also met a number of poets, intellectuals and 144

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

political activists who were proud of their African heritage. He was groomed by his elders to become chief of his tribe. Mandela believed that native African culture was democratic, classless and secular. He described the atmosphere of the meetings conducted by the chiefs in these words, “Everyone who wanted to speak did so. It was democracy in its purest form… The foundation of self-government was that all men were free to voice their opinions and equal in their value as citizens…”(Ref 2 p 22) Gradually Mandela developed black consciousness and his interaction with black chiefs heightened his profound awareness of the oppression of blacks by whites. One such Chief was Chief Joyi. “Chief Joyi said that African people lived in relative peace until the coming of the abelungu, the white people, who arrived from across the sea with fire-breathing weapons. Once, he said, the Thembu, the Mpondo, the Xhosa, and the Zulu were all children of one father, and lived as brothers. The white man shattered the abantu, the fellowship, of the various tribes.”(Ref 2 p 23) One significant event in Mandela’s life was a meeting with a Xhosa poet during his student days when he came to share his philosophy and poetry with the students. The poet, Krune Mghavi, touched Mandela’s heart, mind and soul and made him think seriously about the conflict and clash between African and Western cultures. “… What I am talking to you about is the brutal clash between what is indigenous and good, and what is foreign and bad. We cannot allow these foreigners who do not care for our 145

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

culture to take over our nation. I predict that one day, the forces of African society will achieve a momentous victory over the interloper. For too long, we have succumbed to the false gods of white man. But we will emerge and cast off these foreign notions.”(Ref 2 p 40) After that encounter Mandela started thinking seriously about his African heritage and black identity and developed a strong desire to be part of the struggle. As he watched suffering of blacks in South Africa, he saw the difference between the haves and the have nots. He came to the profound realization that “It was not lack of ability that limited my people, but lack of opportunity.”(Ref 2 p 35) WESTERN DEMOCRATIC TRADITION To become a lawyer Mandela received a Western-style education. He was quite impressed by the English language and culture, especially their political system. Like many educated African men he wanted to follow in the footsteps of Englishmen. He considered them symbols of the cultured race at a personal, social and political level. Mandela confessed that he was an Anglophile. “The educated Englishman was our model; what we aspired to be were ‘black Englishmen’ as we were sometimes derisively called. We were taught—and believed —that the best ideas were English ideas, the best government was English government, and the best men were Englishmen.”(Ref 2 p 37) Mandela, like many other black men and women of his culture and generation, were conditioned to see blacks as 146

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

inferior to whites. The first time Mandela saw a black pilot his heart missed a beat. He realized that he had been so brainwashed that he could not believe a black man could become such a respectable and successful person. Mandela gradually tried to synthesize his African traditions with Western contemporary practices. He liked African culture and Western politics. He was fascinated with the idea of democracy and elections where all citizens were equal in the eyes of the law. Such a democratic system gradually became his ideal and he pursued it wholeheartedly. He started to dream of a multicultural, multiracial parliament and constitution for South Africa. When Mandela was living, working and studying in Johannesburg, he met a number of political personalities who were involved in consciousness-raising and human rights movements. Through serious discussions he became aware of the injustices and discrimination his people were experiencing and was inspired to join the African National Congress (ANC). He gradually became a freedom fighter, dedicated to helping black people fulfill their dreams and aspirations. He also met several black leaders who warned him not to become a political leader, as they believed “politics brings out the worst in men.”(Ref 2 p 73) After serious contemplation Mandela chose to enter politics, an arena in which he bound his future to that of his black countrymen and his struggle with the struggle of Africans. He knew very well that such a decision could cost him his family, his profession, his pride, even his life. He, like other freedom fighters, prepared himself to make sacrifices, endure pain and face hardships. 147

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

When I studied Mandela’s life story I realized that his political struggle went through many phases. When Mandela first joined the ANC, he believed in peaceful methods to bring about political change. Though a confirmed freedom fighter, he was completely against violence. He believed in achieving peaceful ends by peaceful means. He knew that the ANC, founded in 1912, had the reputation of “a body of gentlemen with clean hands.”(Ref 1 p 2) Within a short time Mandela became increasingly dissatisfied with the ANC. He organized the Youth League and initiated a militant non-violent struggle, as he was disappointed in the passive style of the ANC leaders. He wanted to try Gandhi’s political strategies of non-violent non-cooperation. When Mandela expressed his views to ANC leaders he faced resistance, as the ANC truly believed in constitutional and peaceful methods for change. They were not willing to break the law. They preferred negotiations over violent strikes, mediation over armed struggle. After a long discussion Mandela persuaded them to change their position. Mandela convinced members of the ANC to adopt “Gandhian principles of nonviolence, or what the Mahatma called satyagraha…”(Ref 2 p 127) Those who agreed with his position belonged to two groups—some supported it on ethical grounds, believing it was better than other methods of protest, while others concurred not on principle but on the basis of political tactics. Mandela belonged to the second group. He was quite pragmatic in 148

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

his approach; he did not want to confuse a political battle with moral, ethical, religious and spiritual issues as Gandhi did in India. Mandela followed Gandhi politically but not spiritually. In 1949 the ANC approved Program Action proposed by the Youth League and “adopted the League’s Program of Action, which called for boycotts, strikes, stay-at-homes, passive resistance, protest demonstrations, and other forms of mass action. This was a radical change… along the lines of Gandhi’s nonviolent protests in India and the 1946 passive resistance campaign…”(Ref 2 p 114) In spite of the adoption of militant suggestions there was a protest by some leaders of the ANC who thought such a step was premature and “would give the government an excuse to crush the ANC.”(Ref 2 p 114) Mandela and his young colleagues were called “naïve firebrands.”(Ref 2 p 114) It is obvious that the ANC had two groups of members: a more conservative older generation and a more brave, bold and militant new generation willing to take risks. Mandela was arrested for arranging a highly successful nation-wide stay-at-home strike. In court he told the judge that it was a peaceful action as workers were asked merely to stay home and hold a day of mourning for all the freedom fighters who had sacrificed their lives for the struggle. They were not asked to strike or picket or get into any violent confrontation with the police or government. In 1952 Chief Albert Luthuli became the ANC President. He was an activist but not an advocate of violence. Within a short time Mandela realized that militant 149

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

nonviolence was not enough to dislodge the foundations of the apartheid regime and that he had to seriously consider using organized violence. As Mandela matured as a politician and freedom fighter he realized that he had the power to move masses. Mandela’s passionate speeches deeply stirred people’s emotions, gradually preparing them for revolutionary ideas and actions. Once Mandela discovered his oratorical power, he used it as a weapon against his enemies. It was in a public meeting that he first crossed a line and ignited the spark of violence. He confesses, “In those days, I was something of a rabble rousing speaker. I liked to incite an audience and I was doing so that evening. I pointed to the police and said, ‘There, there are our enemies!’ The crowd again started cheering and made aggressive gestures in the direction of the police. The police looked nervous, and a number of them pointed back at me as if to say, ‘Mandela, we will get you for this.’”(Ref 2 p 157) Mandela had started the cycle of violence by publicly declaring the police his enemy, but in the heat of the moment he did not think of the consequences of playing with fire—that he, his dear ones, or his followers could easily be burnt. He entered the cycle of violence that would escalate over the decades. His declaration of war was a step that Dr. Xama, his predecessor, and Chief Luthuli, his contemporary, would never have taken. Such a road could lead to disaster, destruction and even death. Mandela reached a stage where his personal, political, ideological and family lives began to conflict. During that 150

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

phase of his life, Mandela also experienced a number of crises in his personal, professional and social lives which pushed him to abandon legal and constitutional methods of protest. As an attorney he had a number of negative experiences in court, as well as with the white South African police. These encounters made him lose faith in the legal and constitutional process for bringing about social change. After witnessing prejudice, injustice and brutality, and dealing with a legal system which protected the unlawful actions of people in power, he lost hope in democratic methods for reform. “We frequently encountered prejudice in the court itself. White witnesses often refused to answer questions from a kaffir lawyer.”(Ref 2 p 150) Judges humiliated black lawyers by supporting white witnesses. “Instead of citing them for contempt of court, the magistrate would then pose the questions they would not answer from me. I routinely put policemen on the stand and interrogated them; though I would catch them in discrepancies and lies, they never considered me anything but a ‘kaffir lawyer’.”(Ref 1 p 150) Mandela faced another emotional and professional crisis when his name was deleted from the roll of accredited attorneys, on the grounds that he displayed “unprofessional and dishonorable conduct,”(Ref 2 p 162) no doubt related to his involvement in the human rights issues of blacks. After trying militant non-violent methods without success, Mandela’s frustration moved him to the next stage, violent activities against the government. When he tried to 151

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

convince ANC members of the futility of militant non-violence and the necessity of violent methods to fight the government, he was warned that he was taking the party down a dangerous road. Moses Kontane, a powerful figure of the ANC said, “If we embark on the course Mandela is suggesting, we will be exposing innocent people to massacres by the enemy.”(Ref 2 p 279) In another meeting J.N. Singh commented, “Nonviolence has not failed us, we have failed nonviolence.”(Ref 2 p 273) Once Mandela had embraced violence as an integral part of his political struggle, he became concerned that he could be jailed or killed, so he decided to go underground and plan future organized violence. “We were embarking on a new and more dangerous path, a path of organized violence, the results of which we did not and could not know… The name of this new organization was Umkhonto we Sizwe (The Spear of the Nation) the MK. The symbol of the spear was chosen because with this simple weapon Africans had resisted the incursions of whites for centuries.”(Ref 2 p 274) Organizing a violent movement was a major milestone in Mandela’s life. Not only was he embracing violence himself, he had convinced others that it was a worthwhile struggle, a struggle worth living for, worth dying for and even worth killing for. After choosing the road of violence and going underground, Mandela studied the revolutionary leaders and movements that had made significant political changes in the world from China to Israel to Cuba. 152

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

Although Mandela was never a cardholder of the Communist Party, he was inspired by Communist ideology and leadership. To lead his underground party he studied the biographies and writings of Che Guevara, Mao-tse Tung, Fidel Castro and Menachem Begin. He was impressed by Mao’s original thinking and Begin’s determination. Having studied the details of those guerrilla wars, Mandela planned his own underground struggle and “accumulated detailed maps and systematically analyzed the terrain of different regions of the country.”(Ref 2 p 275) It is intriguing that Mandela was inspired by the Jewish national underground organization Irgun Zvai Leumi, which operated in Israel from 1944 to 1948. While Mandela, using the pseudonym David Motosamayi, was living underground and moving secretly from place to place, he attended secret meetings and sent messages to newspapers and organizations. On June 26, 1961, Freedom Day, Mandela released a letter to South African newspapers. “For my own part I have made my choice. I will not leave South Africa, nor will I surrender. Only through hardship, sacrifice and militant action can freedom be won. The struggle is my life. I will continue fighting for freedom until the end of my days.”(Ref 2 p 276) Mandela was quite successful in expressing his commitment to the freedom movement and was gaining popularity among the masses. As his organization gained more power, he began to plan major attacks on the government. At that stage of the struggle he was willing to attack only buildings, and was very careful not to lose any human 153

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

lives. He did not want to risk his popularity by indulging in terrorist attacks. He issued a leaflet on 16th December 1961 on behalf of Umkhonto we Sizwe, which stated, “Units of Umkhonto we Sizwe today carried out planned attacks against government installations, particularly those connected with the policy of apartheid and race discrimination.”(Ref 1 p 122) While he was planning a revolutionary movement, he realized he had limited resources and could not organize a successful campaign against a powerful and rich oppressive government, so he planned to seek help from other African countries and communities. He decided to leave his homeland and meet with the heads of African states to obtain financial and military help for his organization. He left South Africa for a few months to attend a Pan-African conference where he met with many heads of state and political organizations involved in militant revolutionary activities. Mandela received a mixed response. Some offered assistance while others refused to support violent struggles elsewhere. Mandela had planned not only to get economic help but also to receive guerrilla training to create an underground army and become its leader—to walk in the footsteps of Castro and Mao Tse-tung. “I was now embarking on what was to be the most unfamiliar part of my trip: military training. I had arranged to receive six months of training in Addis Ababa.”(Ref 2 p 304) Mandela was quite excited to learn of a number of men who were willing to join the armed struggle, receive training and risk their 154

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

lives. For Mandela it was a high point. He had crossed another line and embraced violence wholeheartedly. Mandela’s dream was to become Commander in Chief of his own guerrilla army. “From Khartoum I went directly to Dar es Salam, where I greeted the first group of twenty-one Umkhonto recruits who were headed to Ethiopia to train as soldiers. It was a proud moment, for these men had volunteered for duty in the army I was then attempting to create.”(Ref 2 p 306) Mandela had systematically planned the stages of his armed struggle. Studying various movements helped him modify other paradigms to fit his needs in South Africa. He described the details of his underground warfare strategy in these words, “In planning the direction and form that MK would take, we considered four types of violent activities: sabotage, guerrilla warfare, terrorism and open revolution. For a small and fledgling army, open revolution was inconceivable. Terrorism inevitably reflected poorly on those who used it, undermining any public support it might otherwise garner. Guerrilla warfare was a possibility, but since the ANC had been reluctant to embrace violence at all, it made sense to start with the form of violence that inflicted the least harm against individuals: sabotage… Sabotage had the added virtue of requiring the least manpower… Strict instructions were given to members of MK that we would countenance no loss of life. But if sabotage did not produce the results we wanted, we were prepared to move to the next stage: guerrilla warfare and terrorism.”(Ref 2 p 283) 155

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

Mandela had finally reached a stage in his life where he had rationalized that the ends justified the means. He was not only willing to die but also willing to kill for his ideals. He also realized that his enemies who believed in violence were in the final analysis deciding the course of his political struggle and ultimately his future. “A freedom fighter learns the hard way that it is the oppressor who defines the nature of the struggle, and the oppressed is often left no recourse but to use methods that mirror those of the oppressors. At a certain point, one can only fight fire with fire.”(Ref 2 p 166) It seems that after that realization Mandela was mentally prepared to go all the way to bring about change in South Africa, even if his revolution meant starting a bloody civil war. Mandela’s group started the military struggle with sabotage which took the form of cutting all the wires of government buildings, destroying their telecommunication systems. The next stage was to make bombs and blow up buildings. The targets were chosen for their strategic importance in the destruction of the apartheid system. Although at that stage there were strict orders not to use guns or kill anyone, Mandela and his army were mentally prepared to cross that line if need be, to bring about a revolution and overthrow the white government in South Africa. While Mandela was organizing these violent attacks and planning the future of his guerrilla warfare, the government was trying very hard to hunt him down. On August 5, 1962, they succeeded in catching “The Black 156

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

Pimpernel” as Mandela was known when he was underground. When he was stopped by the police he “knew in that instant that my life on the run was over; my seventeen months of ‘freedom’ were about to end.”(Ref 2 p 313) Mandela, with his lawyer’s training and his charismatic personality, had discovered that he could use every encounter with the court system as a tool to make a political statement. For his court appearance, he wore his traditional dress to elicit the sympathy of the masses as well as the attention of the media. “The initial hearing was set for Monday October 15, 1962…I had chosen traditional dress to emphasize the symbolism that I was a black African walking into a white man’s court.”(Ref 2 p 324) Mandela knew the importance of displaying his many leadership qualities: his charisma, his courage, his defiance and his commitment. These qualities were the essential ingredients in the formation of a myth to appeal to the psyche of the masses. Since the government was unaware of all of Mandela’s secret violent activities, he was charged with fewer crimes than he had actually committed. He acknowledged, “…the state clearly did not have enough evidence to link me with Umkhonto we Sizwe or I would have been charged with the far more serious crimes of treason or sabotage.”(Ref 2 P 317) Conviction of those crimes would have meant the death sentence; instead, he received three years for inciting people to strike and two years for leaving the country without a passport, five years in total, with no possibility of parole. 157

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

Mandela in prison and in isolation was a painful experience for him and his followers. He was seriously affected emotionally, and in the early stages of imprisonment, frequently locked horns with the authorities and refused to follow their prison rules. To teach him a lesson he was put in isolation until he agreed to wear what others were wearing and eat what others were eating. Within a short time of being in isolation, let out of his cell for only an hour a day, he was afraid he might lose his sanity. He shares that traumatic experience in these words, “… After a time in solitary, I relished the company even of the insects in my cell, and found myself on the verge of initiating conversations with a cockroach.”(Ref 2 p 334) Once Mandela capitulated and agreed to follow the rules he was allowed to live and work with other prisoners. The government, meanwhile, had been investigating the extent of Mandela’s underground activities and discovered the details of not only the people involved but also the activities planned. On May 1, 1963, the government enacted legislation designed “to break the back of Umkhonto” as Vorster put it.(Ref 2 p 238) “The law helped transform the country into a police state; no dictator could covet more power than the Ninety Day Detention Law gave to the authorities. As a result, the police became more savage; prisoners were routinely beaten and we soon heard reports of electric shock, suffocation, and other forms of torture.”(Ref 2 P 239) Mandela’s army and the state police were escalating their violent battle. When Mandela’s involvement with Umkhonto was 158

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

discovered, he was charged with treason. Mandela and his comrades in the struggle were tried in the Supreme Court in October 1963—“the most significant political trial in the history of South Africa.”(Ref 2 p 351) Mandela and his ten companions were charged with two hundred acts of sabotage and violent revolution aimed at overthrowing the government. During one of the police raids, Umkhonto’s key members had been caught red-handed with the detailed plans of the terrorist activities and guerrilla warfare. “… The document set a goal of seven thousand MK recruits in the country who would meet the initial outside force of one hundred twenty trained guerrillas.”(Ref 2 p 358) Mandela confessed openly and honestly his political and military plans, his philosophy and training. He acknowledged that he had left the country to acquire military training. “I said that I underwent training because if there was to be a guerrilla war, I wanted to be able to stand and fight beside my own people.” In his defense Mandela also highlighted that the plan was in an embryonic state and it did not have the blessings of the ANC. He ended his presentation in the court in a dramatic way. He stared right into the judge’s eyes and stated, “… I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if need be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.” I found it interesting that Mandela during his student 159

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

life had taken part in stage plays. He used all his acting abilities in court as he knew that not only the people present in court but all of South Africa was watching his performance. There was a pin-drop silence in the court and then women started to cry. Mandela, his friends and lawyers were all resigned to the pronouncement of the death sentence. Mandela’s lawyer asked him if he would ask for an appeal. Mandela refused, his philosophy being, “…if anything we might serve the cause greater in death as martyrs than we ever could in life.”(Ref 2 p 373) Mandela had realized that losing his life was a reasonable gamble on the path to becoming a myth. The judge stated, “…giving the matter very serious consideration I have decided not to impose the supreme penalty which in a case like this would usually be the proper penalty for the crime, but consistent with my duty that is the only leniency which I can show. The sentence in the case of all the accused will be one of life imprisonment.”(Ref 2 p 376) Everybody was shocked and relieved at the verdict. It is an interesting question why the judge gave life imprisonment rather than the death sentence. There appeared to be a great deal of political lobbying inside and outside the country not to judge the defendants harshly. The United Nations had requested amnesty. Mandela felt that the judge did not want to be perceived as the murderer of black leaders, as he had highlighted that he was a black man in a white court. 160

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

The verdict pronounced, Mandela and his comrades, the freedom fighters, were sent to Robben Island. While Mandela was in prison the military struggle escalated. His group, MK, started throwing bombs, often killing innocent civilians. Mandela heard all that in jail and as their leader justified such actions, stating that they were a reaction to the oppressive government regime. In one of those attacks nineteen people were killed and more than two hundred injured. Mandela rationalized deaths of those innocent civilians in these words, “The killing of civilians was a tragic accident, and I felt a profound horror at the death toll. But as disturbed as I was by these casualties, I knew that such accidents were the inevitable consequences of the decision to embark on a military struggle.”(Ref 2 p 518) As the years passed, the violence escalated and killings on both sides increased. Mandela realized that he was deeply entrenched in the cycle of violence. He also knew that his army was not powerful enough to take over the government, so he changed his strategy to one of readiness for negotiations. By that time world opinion was in his favor and the United Nations had started supporting sanctions against the South African government. Mandela, having suffered in prison for more than two decades, realized that he had to adopt a different strategy to gain his goal. Since he had been instrumental in plunging the black population into a violent struggle, he had to do something to get them out of it. He wanted to win freedom for himself and his nation and not die in prison. He had a recurring nightmare that he was released 161

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

from prison and there was no one to receive him. No glory, no fame, no popularity. He did not want all his efforts to be in vain. He wanted to die as a winner, not as a loser. His prolonged soul-searching ended in a profound insight. “We had been fighting against white minority rule for three quarters of a century. We had been engaged in an armed struggle for more than two decades. Many people on both sides had already died. The enemy was strong and resolute… We had right on our side, but not yet might. It was clear to me that a military victory was a distant if not impossible dream. It simply did not make sense for both sides to lose thousands if not millions of lives in a conflict that was unnecessary. They must have known this as well. It was time to talk.”(Ref 2 P 524) It is interesting to note how Mandela ultimately changed the course of his armed struggle and in so doing, the future of his country. His readiness to engage in a dialogue and to negotiate with the whites was seen by some as weakness, and by others as wisdom. Mandela realized that in a political struggle, might was as important as being right. From idealism he was gradually moving towards realism. As the violence escalated, so did the opportunity to negotiate. The social unrest reached a boiling point and on June 12, 1986, the government imposed a State of Emergency in an attempt to contain the protest. Once Mandela showed willingness to negotiate, the government agreed to hold secret preliminary meetings, the first of which took place in May 1988. The whites 162

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

feared that if the blacks gained more power they would either kill them or force them to leave the country. Mandela wisely realized that he needed to reassure the whites, and told them that South Africa belonged to both blacks and whites. “We do not want to drive you into the sea…”(Ref 2 p 539) Finally President Botha agreed to meet with Mandela. They had a number of secret meetings in which they held negotiations but unfortunately could not come to any agreement. Mandela demanded the unconditional release of all political prisoners, which Botha declined. Botha made repeated offers to release Mandela on the condition that he would unconditionally reject violence as a political weapon but Mandela turned down his offers. Finally there was a crisis in the government and Botha resigned in August 1989, to be replaced by F. W. de Klerk who, as acting president, affirmed his commitment to change and reform.(Ref 2 p 551) When de Klerk came into power he showed willingness to engage in a genuine dialogue. Mandela played a pivotal role in preparing both the ANC and the government to come to the negotiating table and set the foundation for a free South Africa and non-apartheid elections. Mandela again reassured the whites of South Africa that it would be a peaceful transition and they would not be killed, imprisoned or expelled from the country. Mandela was fortunate to be dealing with an enemy like de Klerk who was willing to engage in a dialogue and share power. The presidency of de Klerk was the beginning of the end of the white minority government. Just as two 163

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

parties are needed to escalate a war, two parties are needed to find a mutually agreeable solution. Finally Mandela became a free man on Feb 11, 1990 and millions of people celebrated his release. It was one of the most historic moments of the 20th century. Shortly after his release, serious discussions took place concerning the future of South Africa. De Klerk realized the futility of apartheid, and was prepared to participate in the democratic transfer of power from the white minority to the black majority. After a long violent struggle, Mandela became a symbol of peace, justice and democracy. During his 27 years in prison, he had become a myth. It is significant to note that even after his release from prison and extensive negotiations with de Klerk and the government, Mandela never renounced his commitment to armed struggle, and had in fact used the threat of continued violence to speed up negotiations. He confessed, “I told the reporters that there was no contradiction between my continuing support for the armed struggle and my advocating negotiations. It was the reality and the threat of the armed struggle that had brought the government to the verge of negotiations. I added that when the state stopped inflicting violence on the ANC, the ANC would reciprocate with peace.”(Ref 2 p 568) But after his release he faced another problem: his party, the ANC, had to deal with the violence of the Zulus led by Chief Butheleze, who was the head of the Inkatha Freedom Party and the chief minister of KwaZulu. While Mandela was negotiating peace, there was escalating vio164

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

lence in the country. South Africa seemed to be on the verge of a civil war. “In the meantime, Natal became a killing ground. Heavily armed Inkatha supporters had in effect declared war on ANC strongholds across the Natal Midlands region and around Pietermaritzburg. Entire villages were set alight, dozens of people were killed, hundreds were wounded, and thousands became refugees. In March 1990 alone, 230 people lost their lives in this internecine violence. In Natal, Zulu was murdering Zulu, for Inkatha members and ANC partisans are Zulus.”(Ref 2 p 576) Mandela must have felt guilty that he was one of the parties who had joined the cycle of violence and that he was gradually losing control. Mandela, like Gandhi in India, realized that he was waging battle not only with the whites but also with his own countrymen who seemed to have different aspirations. Gandhi went on a hunger strike to call for peace, while Mandela exhorted the masses to throw away their weapons. But his pleas were as ineffective as Gandhi’s. “In February, only two weeks after my release, I went to Durban and spoke to a crowd of over 100,000 people at King’s Park, almost all of whom were Zulus. I pleaded with them to lay down their arms, to take each other’s hands in peace: ‘Take your guns, your knives, and your pangas, and throw them into the sea! Close down the death factories! End this war now!’ But my call fell on deaf ears. The fighting and dying continued.”(Ref 2 p 576) While I read about the gruesome killings and the violence that was gripping South Africa, I wondered if 165

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

Mandela, who was now urging his people to renounce violence, ever realized that he was one of the instigators who had encouraged them to engage in an armed struggle. Mandela, like Gandhi, seemed surprised that his dedicated followers and disciples were killing people, completely ignoring his pleas for peace. They seemed to have opened Pandora’s box and could not close it. In spite of Mandela’s passionate pleas for peace, the violence continued to escalate. “Violence in the country was worsening, the death toll of 1990 was already over fifteen hundred, more than all the political deaths of the previous year. After conferring with my colleagues, I felt it necessary to speed up the process of normalization. Our country was bleeding to death, and we had to move ahead faster.”(Ref 2 p 585) After 30 years of fighting for justice, Mandela realized that violence was not working—a major step in his life. He signed an agreement with the government to suspend the armed struggle. But as the violence continued, his faith wavered. His dialogue with the government was still shaky and fragile, like his faith in peaceful negotiations. “As the violence continued to spiral, I began to have second thoughts about the suspension of the armed struggle. Many of the people in the ANC were restive, and in September, at a press conference, I said that the continuing violence might necessitate taking up arms once more. The situation looked very grim, and any understanding that had been achieved with the government seemed lost.”(Ref 2 p 589) Mandela, Chief Butheleze and President de Klerk were 166

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

on a violent political roller coaster. Their triangle reminded me of the triangle of Gandhi, Jinnah and Lord Mountbatten. Butheleze, like Jinnah, wanted a separate Zulu state while Mandela, like Gandhi, wanted to liberate South Africa in one piece. Mandela did not want South Africa to follow in the footsteps of India; he believed that the government’s agenda to “partition” South Africa into eight nations based on tribes (North and South Sotho, Swazi, Tsonga, Tswana, Vendu, Xhosa, and Zulu) was misleading, dangerous and disastrous. “The newspapers have christened the nationalists’ plan as one of ‘Bantustans’. The hybrid word is, in many ways, extremely misleading. It derives from the partitioning of India after the reluctant departure of the British, and as a condition thereof, into separate states, Hindustan and Pakistan…there will be forcible uprooting and mass removals of millions of people to ‘homogenous administrative areas’…the term ‘Bantustan’ is therefore a complete misnomer, and merely tends to help the Nationalists perpetrate a fraud.”(Ref 1 p 78) Mandela and Butheleze, like Gandhi and Jinnah, had opposing dreams and there was a danger that one leader’s dream could turn the other’s into a bloody nightmare. They talked and discussed and argued and fought but could not resolve any of the issues, while the nation meanwhile was flirting with civil war. Blacks were killing blacks, as followers of the ANC and Inkatha, like the followers of the Congress and the Muslim League, were at each other’s throats. “The violence continued between our two organizations. Each month people were dying by the hundreds… 167

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

I could not sit idly by as the violence continued, and I sought another meeting with Chief Butheleze. In April I went down to Durban and we again made strong statements and signed another agreement. But again, the ink was no sooner dry than it was drenched in blood.”(Ref 2 p 591) While Mandela and Butheleze talked of peace, they in fact propagated violence by permitting their followers to commit acts of violence. They were not ready to surrender completely. Finally Mandela realized that thousands of innocent people would needlessly die unless someone broke the impasse and gave up on violence. He decided to be the first one to renounce it. “…we in South Africa were settling our differences among ourselves. Mr. de Klerk talked about the need for a transitional, ‘power-sharing’ government on a democratic basis. The national Party’s chief delegate to the talks, Dawie de Villiers, even offered an apology for apartheid.”(Ref 2 p 595) Even after deciding to give up arms he was not willing to give them to de Klerk. When de Klerk observed that the ANC had a “private army”, Mandela stated, “We told him that we would turn in our weapons only when we were a part of the government collecting those weapons.”(Ref 2 p 597) Despite all the expressions of goodwill, the balance between violent and peaceful forces was quite precarious. The future of South Africa remained unsure until the last moment. “…on May 15, 1992, prospects of agreement looked bleak. What we disagreed about was threatening all that we had agreed upon. Mr. de Klerk and I had not man168

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

aged to find a consensus on most of the outstanding issues. The government seemed prepared to wait indefinitely, their thinking was that the longer we waited, the more support we would lose.”(Ref 2 p 602) Before dawn came the darkest hour. Mandela wanted to have a last affair with violence before the final exit. It was not easy to give up an ideology, a philosophy, a lifestyle that Mandela had adopted and promoted for thirty years. “…on the night of June 17, 1992, a heavily armed force of Inkatha members secretly raided the Vaal township of Boipatong and killed forty-six people. Most of the dead were women and children. It was the fourth mass killing of ANC people that week…no arrests were made…no investigation begun… Mr de Klerk said nothing… I found this to be the last straw, and my patience snapped…”(Ref 2 p 603) That was the last time when Mandela’s patience ended and all the anger, resentment and bitterness came to the surface. He had to purge all those violent emotions before he could cleanse himself for good. “…four days after the murders, I addressed a crowd of twenty thousand angry ANC supporters… I likened the behavior of the National Party to the Nazis in Germany, and publicly warned de Klerk that if he sought to impose new measures to restrict demonstrations or free expression, the ANC would launch a nationwide defiance campaign with myself as the first volunteer…at the rally, I saw signs that read ‘MANDELA GIVE US GUNS’ and ‘VICTORY THROUGH BATTLE NOT TALK’…they were beginning to think that the only 169

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

way to overthrow apartheid was through the barrel of a gun…”(Ref 2 p 604) Mandela realized that if he gave his followers the license to take up arms, he might ignite another cycle of violence, a cycle that could start a civil war. Fortunately, he realized the significance of the moment before it was too late. At last Mandela and de Klerk found common ground. On June 3, 1993, they agreed to set a date, April 27, 1994, for national, non-racial, one-person-one-vote elections and start a new chapter of South African history. But even after Mandela had achieved that agreement with his enemy, he could not communicate with his African rival, Chief Butheleze, who had decided to boycott the elections and the transfer of power. He wanted his own separate Bantustan. Mandela eventually succeeded in swaying Butheleze’s separatist stance, something which Gandhi could not do with Jinnah. Mandela was determined to make a deal at any price and is reported to have said, “I will go down on my knees to beg those who want to drag our country into bloodshed.”(Ref 2 p 615) It is fascinating that Mandela and Butheleze did come to an agreement and did not let the government divide South Africa into eight Bantustans. Ultimately, they took responsibility for their people and their future. In this way they were significantly different than Jinnah and Gandhi, who could not resolve their conflicts. It is interesting that many followers of Gandhi and Jinnah, members of the Indian Congress and the Pakistani Muslim League, even 170

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

today after half a century of partition, put all the blame on the British Government and refuse to ascribe any responsibility to their leaders for failing to resolve their conflicts peacefully, which set the stage for a bloody massacre. Mandela was also successful in making the deal with de Klerk that Gandhi could not make with Lord Mountbatten. He engaged him in a dialogue and made him accept his conditions for sharing power. He told de Klerk in a meeting, “‘I think we are a shining example to the entire world of people drawn from different racial groups who have a common loyalty, a common love, to their common country…sir, you are one of those I rely upon. We are going to face the problem of this country together’. At which point I reached over to take his hand and said, ‘I am proud to hold your hand for us to go forward.’ Mr de Klerk seemed surprised but pleased.” Mandela’s peaceful resolution of conflicts with Butheleze and de Klerk at the eleventh hour set the stage for elections without the bloodshed of a civil war. It added to his luster as a respectable statesman in the eyes of the world. After Mandela resolved issues with de Klerk and Butheleze, the road was clear for elections and the transfer of power. Mandela recalls his first voting experience: “I did not go into that voting station alone on April 27 [1994], I was casting my vote with all of them… I had cast the first vote of my life…” The election results were interesting. The ANC won but not with the two-thirds majority required to form the 171

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

government. They needed help from the representatives of other political parties to make a constitution. Mandela wrote, “…we polled 62.6 percent of the national vote, slightly short of the two-thirds needed had we wished to push through a final constitution without support from other parties…we captured 22 percent in KwaZulu Natal, which was won by Inkatha. Some in the ANC were disappointed that we did not cross the two-thirds threshold, but I was not one of them. In fact I was relieved. Had we won two-thirds of the vote and been able to write a constitution unfettered by input from others, people would argue that we had created an ANC constitution, not a South African constitution. I wanted a true government of national unity.”(Ref 2 P 619) Mandela and de Klerk were making history. “On the evening of May 2, Mr. de Klerk made a gracious concession speech. After more than three centuries of rule, the white minority was conceding defeat and turning over power to the black majority… I congratulated Mr. De Klerk for his strong showing and said, ‘This is a time to heal the old wounds and build a new South Africa.’”(Ref 2 P 619) Mandela and de Klerk were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for the transformation they had achieved in South Africa. One of the most intriguing aspects of Mandela’s life is that the political activist who led a violent struggle for decades was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. There were a number of people around the world who were surprised to hear that news—including Mandela himself. “Even during the bleakest years on Robben Island, Amnesty 172

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

International would not campaign for us on the grounds that we had pursued an armed struggle, and their organization would not represent anyone who had embraced violence. It was for that reason that I assumed the Nobel committee would never consider the man who had started Umkhonto we Sizwe for the peace prize.”(Ref 2 p 612) It is interesting that while Mandela, who was inspired by Communist leaders like Mao and Castro believed that the only way to achieve political change in South Africa was through violent means, there was another contemporary black leader, Desmond Tutu, who shared his dream of a free and just South Africa and believed that such a change could be brought about by peaceful means. Tutu was also awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. During his acceptance speech in Oslo, he shared his philosophy of non-violence, stating that he disagreed with violence whether it was used by the government to suppress and oppress people or by revolutionary organizations to attack the government. Mandela, unlike many other South African freedom fighters who were murdered or who died in prison, was fortunate to have lived long enough to enjoy the fruits of his struggles. Although the journey was long and arduous, he was able to embrace the goddess of freedom and kiss the princess of democracy. Finally he could walk in the streets of South Africa as a free man. His dream had come true and in his struggle he never let go his ideals, which he felt were worth living for, dying for, even killing for. He justified his embrace of violence: “It was this desire for the freedom of my people to live their lives with dignity 173

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

and self-respect that animated my life, that transformed a frightened young man into a bold one, that drove a lawabiding attorney to become a criminal, that turned a family-loving husband into a man without a home, that forced a life-loving man to live like a monk.”(Ref 2 p 624) Nelson Mandela believed that in South Africa the foundations of the apartheid system could be shaken only with bombs, that the chains of oppression and discrimination could be melted only with fire; and that peace could be won only through violence. It is also significant to note that Mandela’s struggle, unlike many other guerrilla wars and revolutions in the world, ended in democratic elections and the transfer of power to the masses.

REFERENCES Ref. 1 Mandela, Nelson. The Struggle Is My Life. New York: Pathfinder, 1990. Ref. 2 Mandela, Nelson. Long Walk To Freedom. Toronto: Little, Brown and Company, 1995.

174

HO CHI MINH

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

— HO CHI MINH— A REVOLUTIONARY SAINT

Ho Chi Minh looked frail and vulnerable physically, yet proved to be strong enough emotionally, ideologically and politically to challenge and ultimately defeat France and the United States of America, two super powers of the 20th century. He had enormous faith in his ideals and people and remained confident that Vietnam would not only gain independence but also start her journey towards economic equality and social justice, and one day embrace socialism. In spite of rubbing shoulders with the world’s greatest presidents and prime ministers and being invited to royal palaces and assembly halls, he led a modest life. He ate simple food, wore simple clothes and performed his regular exercises daily. Like saints and guerrilla warriors, he had discovered two great secrets quite early in life: discipline and humility. No wonder he became a legend for millions of freedom fighters and revolutionaries all over the world. In the last few decades, the Vietnam War has become a symbol of all those wars through which small proud countries strive to end their social, economic and political exploitation by rich superpowers. Ho Chi Minh’s struggles 177

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

like those of Mohandas Gandhi have been inspiring many communities and countries to challenge British, French and American capitalism and imperialism and pave the way for justice, freedom and peace in their homelands. Ho Chi Minh had two dreams: national independence for Vietnam and social justice for the Vietnamese people. All his life, he struggled to transform those dreams into realities. Researching Ho Chi Minh’s life, I learned that he adopted various names, personalities and identities at different stages. He chose those pseudonyms to promote his message, avoid persecution by the police and confuse the immigration authorities when moving from one country to another. Some of his acquaintances and even his relatives were unaware that all those names were the social persona of the same person. He had become the political Sybil, a revolutionary with multiple personalities. He wrote even his autobiographical essays under different pseudonyms and he spoke of his life in the third person, making it difficult for his biographers to determine with certainty which writings belonged to Ho Chi Minh and which did not. His biographer William Duiker wrote in the introduction of Ho Chi Minh…A Life, “He adopted more than fifty assumed names…it is hardly surprising that no serious biography of Ho Chi Minh has been published in English over the last 20 years.” Stories of people like Ho Chi Minh become part of folklore and as in famous folktales, the message becomes more important than the author, giving birth to world mythology. 178

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

Ho Chi Minh was a mystery man in his personal and political life. In his relationships with women, social organizations or political movements, he never divulged the whole truth. As a guerrilla warrior he was aware that information was power, and he did not want to relinquish that power to others, especially those he did not trust. In the early stages of his life he trusted people, sometimes blindly. However, it seems that on several occasions, that blind trust nearly cost him his life, which taught him to be selective and cautious. He kept many aspects of his life secret until his old age. A few years before his death he stated in one of his interviews, “An old man likes to have a little air of mystery about himself.”(Ref 1 p 7) Ho Chi Minh was born in 1890, at the end of a century during which European countries had been colonizing Asian countries. While Britain had focused on India and Burma, France had taken control of Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh was the second son of Nguyen Sinh Sac, a Confucian scholar who kept his nationalist feelings and socialist ideology close to his heart and tried all his life to avoid working for his government which he did not respect. He named his son Nguyen Sinh Cung. When the young Nguyen became a teenager, he was given the adult name of Nguyen Tat Thanh, which means “successful person”. His father could not have foreseen that his son would become one of the most successful revolutionary warriors of the 20th century but would be known by the name of Ho Chi Minh. Ho Chi Minh was taught by several different scholars including his father, a well-respected teacher of the 179

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

community. He remained faithful to his father’s philosophy, embracing the values of equality and social justice and developing reverence for the wisdom of Confucius. As a teenager he was an avid reader, studying the aphorisms of Confucius as well as contemporary history and sociology. Very early in his life he became aware of French imperialism and how it had deprived his countrymen of their basic human rights. He developed empathy for his people and a dream to free them from foreign rule, a dream that shaped not only his future but also that of his motherland. He vowed to end the suffering of his people and make them free and prosperous. As a young adult, Ho Chi Minh developed an ambivalent relationship with French politics and culture. On one hand he resented them and held them responsible for the suffering of his people and on the other he needed to study their history and culture. He had read that the 15th century Confucian scholar Nguyen Trai “had pointed out that it was necessary to understand the enemy in order to defeat him.”(Ref 1 p 27) While studying the biographies of several revolutionaries I observed that some of them avoided any interaction with imperialistic powers because they hated them with a passion, while others chose to interact with and study their enemies, before engaging them in war. Ho Chi Minh belonged to the second category. He not only worked hard to study the French language but also decided to go to France for a closer look at the enemy before planning the revenge of his ancestors. 180

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

Ho Chi Minh also had rebellious tendencies, which brought him into conflict with his teachers, as he challenged autocratic traditions and authorities. While still a young man, he joined a strike against the autocratic government in his home town, not realizing that the protest could spiral out of control, and eventually turn violent. The police attacked Ho Chi Minh and his friends, but the young protesters succeeded in getting away. The police had recognized Ho Chi Minh, and the next day came looking for him at his school. The school authorities expelled him and that was the end of his formal schooling. He would soon become a life long student in the university of life. Joining the local strike was the beginning of Ho Chi Minh’s active involvement with politics and his first close encounter with police and death. To avoid further encounters with local police with whom he was already blacklisted, Ho Chi Minh decided to leave town for a few months. His decision to go underground paved the way for his becoming a guerrilla warrior. He realized that if he remained in the country he would be imprisoned or executed by the government because of his rebellious thoughts and activities. He got a job on a ship and travelled to France to study French culture and plan his strategy for the struggle for independence. During his journey abroad he adopted the pseudonym of Nguyen Ai Quoc, which he used in his autobiography for that period in his life. Ho Chi Minh was twenty when he arrived in Paris in spring of 1911. While living in France he observed that the French who lived in France were 181

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

gentle and kind and were different from the French who ruled Vietnam in a cruel and autocratic way. Gradually he developed a more realistic view of the French nation. Though he hated the political oppression of his country, he developed compassion for the ordinary people of France, even though they belonged to the enemy nation. He expressed his observations in a letter to his friend in these words, “The French in France are better and more polite than those in Indochina.” During his stay in Paris, Ho Chi Minh survived by doing odd jobs, studied French and became involved in politics. He made contacts with the local Vietnamese community as well as the French Socialist Party. In the beginning French intellectuals found Ho Chi Minh emotionally shy and ideologically naïve. Over the years, as a good student of life, Ho Chi Minh gained knowledge, experience and confidence. As French socialists got to know him better, they were impressed by his passion, dedication and intensity. With increasing social and political maturity, Ho Chi Minh also developed his creative talents writing short articles focusing on the struggles of the Vietnamese people. In those days he was impressed by American democracy and used to quote President Woodrow Wilson who was supportive of the “self-determination of all peoples.”(Ref 1 p 58) Ho Chi Minh, as a young and naïve idealist, was optimistic that America, being a symbol of freedom, would support the Vietnamese to gain independence from French dominance. As Ho Chi Minh became more involved in 182

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

Vietnamese politics, the French government directed the local police to keep an eye on him. However, because of his pseudonym, French authorities were not aware of his true identity. When French socialists accused him of being politically naive, Ho Chi Minh started reading the classics. His first attempt was to study Das Kapital but he was utterly frustrated by the writings of Karl Marx. After Marx he approached Lenin. While reading Lenin he experienced an ideological and political breakthrough. He described his excitement in these words, “What emotion, enthusiasm, clear sightedness and confidence it instilled in me! I was overjoyed to tears.” Finally he had found his mentor, his role model, and through him, his vision for the future of his country. He realized, “This is what we need, this is the path of our liberation.”(Ref 1 p 64) Ho Chi Minh remained a great admirer of Lenin’s genius for the rest of his life. Despite his discovery of Lenin, Ho Chi Minh’s appetite for new knowledge and ideas did not diminish. He continued to read and study voraciously much of the classical, philosophical and socialist literature. Yet, despite the knowledge he gained, he kept a low profile and led a modest existence. He deliberately avoided academic discussions with French intellectuals, as he believed that those discussions distanced intellectuals from the ordinary people. Ho Chi Minh was more practical than theoretical, and was more willing to make sacrifices than speeches. He remained loyal and faithful to the common people. His simple and modest lifestyle gained him respect not only 183

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

from his admirers and followers, but also from his critics and enemies. After writing several short articles and stories, Ho Chi Minh wrote a significant book, The Oppressed, in which he openly discussed his political diagnosis and economic prescription for the plight of the Vietnamese people. As his fame grew, so did his notoriety. Eventually the French police discovered that Nguyen Ai Quoc was the same person as Nguyen Tat Thanh, who had been in conflict with the police in Vietnam because of his rebellious behavior, and subsequently declared him a “dangerous agitator.”(Ref 1 p 70) Whenever Ho Chi Minh discussed with Chinese and Russian intellectuals the possibility of a socialist revolution, he came away disappointed, as they believed that “in most ‘backward’ countries revolution would be long delayed.”(Ref 1 p 74) These traditional communists believed that Asian and African countries could not experience revolution, as the objective conditions were not yet fulfilled. They thought that an industrial revolution was a prerequisite for a socialist revolution. Ho Chi Minh, like Che Guevara from Latin America, disagreed with the hypothetical and academic analyses of those European socialist academicians. He believed that if a large number of dedicated and committed revolutionaries were to join him in the struggle, he could expel the French rulers from Vietnam. His European comrades believed he was a young and naïve dreamer who did not fully comprehend and appreciate the political dynamics of a socialist revolution. Since Ho Chi Minh did 184

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

not like wasting time in idle academic debate he, like saints and Confucian scholars, kept quiet and smiled. When he became a well-known personality in the local Vietnamese community he started publishing a newspaper, which brought him into even greater conflict with the police who began to harass, intimidate and physically assault him. Those beatings strengthened his resolve and added fuel to the fire of revolution burning in his heart. However, despite his determination, Ho Chi Minh realized that his days in France were numbered, as the French police perceived him as a dangerous revolutionary and summoned him for interrogations. During one such encounter in 1922 with officials of the Ministry of Colonies, he became quite abrupt with the officer and after briefly answering a few questions stated, “…what I need most of all is freedom for my compatriots. May I go now?”(Ref 1 p 83) To the French authorities he remained an enigma. They were baffled by this eccentric revolutionary who would not be intimidated by the police, and who did not seem to be afraid of prison, punishment or persecution. He seemed dedicated to his cause, and willing to fight for his dream. Realizing his days of freedom in Paris were numbered, Ho Chi Minh left France secretly and traveled to Russia under the identity of Chen Vang, a Chinese merchant. To fool the French police he told everybody he was going on a short vacation. When he reached the Russian border he was detained for several weeks as the immigration officers became suspicious of his true identity as well as his 185

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

intentions. Unable to disprove his identity, Russian authorities eventually released him, and allowed him to travel freely. He quickly made new friends and registered in a university to study Russian as well as politics, and the economics of socialism. During his stay in Russia he developed an even greater admiration for Lenin and was sad that he could not meet his mentor in person. When Lenin died in Jan 1924, Ho Chi Minh walked miles in the bitter cold to attend the funeral. Russian socialists were quite impressed by the dedication of Ho Chi Minh and his fascination for Russian culture and the revolution. He was invited to attend the meetings of the Socialist Party, where he immediately focused their attention on the plight of colonial people. He asked them to help the Vietnamese to gain their freedom and independence so that they could also enjoy economic equality and social justice. After an extensive study of socialism he decided to leave Russia and return to Asia to launch a revolutionary movement in Indochina. Before returning to his native Vietnam he decided to visit China where he hoped to further broaden his existential, ideological and political horizons. Ho Chi Minh’s experiences in France, Russia and China prepared him well for the role which he was destined to play in the future of his homeland—leader of an armed struggle for national independence. Some of his friends challenged his militant philosophy and urged him to adopt non-violent politics and follow in the footsteps of 186

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

Mohandas Gandhi. Ho Chi Minh replied that in spite of his respect for Gandhi, he believed that Gandhi was a reformer, not a revolutionary. Other communist friends criticized him for his nationalistic approach, telling him that socialism was fundamentally a class struggle. When Ho Chi Minh was criticized by international socialists for his nationalist feelings, he stated that he saw no conflict between nationalist and internationalist struggle. He believed in acting locally and thinking globally. As time passed, his popularity and his following grew and he became a well-respected leader of Vietnamese people inside and outside Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh was quite an introspective leader. Rather than putting all the blame on the enemy, he asked his comrades a chilling question, “For what reason have the French been able to oppress us?”(Ref 1 p 126) Ho Chi Minh trained a guerrilla army and step by step prepared them to walk on the road of independence. He told them they were going to travel on a tortuous path full of hurdles and sacrifices. He was willing to work with them throughout the long night of oppression until they could embrace the dawn of freedom and social justice. Over the years more and more people accepted him as their leader as they were impressed by both his ideology and his personality. Like other revolutionaries Ho Chi Minh was a charismatic leader. He had the mind of a revolutionary but the heart of a mystic, a rare combination. On one hand he hoped to earn freedom by peaceful means but on the other hand he was also willing if necessary to fight a war for 187

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

freedom. He had assimilated the teachings of both Lenin and Confucius, which gave him a balanced outlook on life. Later in his struggle, he was also impressed by the political and guerrilla tactics of Mao. He shared his vision of revolution in his book The Revolutionary Path. For years Ho Chi Minh played hide and seek with the police, living as a political gypsy. He was detained at borders, jailed and beaten up, as he was perceived as a dangerous character. But he retained his faith in his noble cause and he accepted all that torture as a sacrifice for his sacred dream of liberation. He was in love with his ideal and every sacrifice made his heart beat faster for his beloved revolution. Alongside his essays and books he also wrote poems expressing his revolutionary themes. In one of his poems he said, And whoever should wish to seize Must first kill us to the last Vietnamese He was not only willing to sacrifice his own life on the altar of liberation; he was also inviting every one of his countrymen to follow in his footsteps. Ho Chi Minh always focused more on similarities than differences. He believed in unity of goals. He was upset when he saw followers of Lenin attacking those of Mao. He pleaded with his socialist friends that to spread a socialist revolution throughout the world, all revolutionaries needed to transcend their differences and work together. He always tried to build bridges between different people, 188

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

organizations, institutions and ideologies. He was even a peacemaker between different armed and violent struggles. During the years that Ho Chi Minh lived and travelled in Europe, Russia and China, he made many attempts to go back to Vietnam but police vigilance made it impossible. Finally in 1930 he met with his comrades in Canton and brought all his followers together under the umbrella of one new political group, the Vietnam Communist Party. For Ho Chi Minh it was a major step in his struggle and he became more hopeful that one day he would fulfill his dream of a free Vietnam. After creating that party he approached other socialist and communist parties. They welcomed him and offered him support. In the Vietnamese Communist party there were a number of militants ready to pick up arms and move towards revolution in Vietnam, but Ho Chi Minh urged them to wait as he thought the Vietnamese were not ready for armed revolution. He did not want people to lose their lives unnecessarily. Ho Chi Minh, in spite of believing in armed struggle and guerrilla war, viewed violence as the last rather than the first step towards revolution and saw military struggle only as a means to an end of political struggle and not an end in itself. He desperately wanted to gain freedom for his people through negotiations. While living in Hong Kong in the1930s, he was arrested by the British police and was put in jail where he spent several painful months. In Vietnam the French Government was also waiting for him. When the British Government decided to hand him over to the French, Ho 189

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

Chi Minh knew that he would be imprisoned and quite probably killed. He wanted to avoid deportation, and decided to escape at any cost. After another close encounter with police and death, he succeeded in returning to Russia. During 1930s when he was in Russia he said that “he had only one wish and that was to return as soon as possible to his fatherland.”(Ref 1 p 227) Since he could not return to Vietnam, he went to China one more time in 1938 and wrote a number of articles in French under the pseudonym of P.C. Line. When the Second World War started in 1939 Ho Chi Minh hoped that it would weaken France, which would strengthen his cause. He was overjoyed when France quickly surrendered to Germany. “The French defeat represents a very favorable opportunity for the Vietnamese revolution.”(Ref 1 p 242) Ho Chi Minh realized that the revolution would be a long and complex process in which a number of national forces and international dynamics would play important roles. He paid attention to all the political changes in the world that might make the future of Vietnamese people brighter. In 1941 he focused on guerrilla war activities and closely followed in the footsteps of Mao. He was different than other revolutionaries as he encouraged women to join the cause and fight side by side with men. He acknowledged the sacrifices of women in one of his poems in these words, Vietnamese women forever Have sacrificed themselves for our country and our race (Ref 1 p 259) 190

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

In 1942 when he was traveling incognito he assumed the identity of a Chinese reporter by the name of Ho Chi Minh. Of all the fictitious names that he chose throughout his life, this one stayed with him and eventually gained him worldwide fame. When America joined the world war, Ho Chi Minh hoped for some help from that quarter in the struggle for a free Vietnam. He thought that since Americans believed in democracy and self-rule, they might help him in the efforts towards independence. He met with American military officials in Kunming and attempted to bargain with them. Ho Chi Minh offered the services of a thousand trained guerrillas for operations against the Japanese in return for arms and medicine for the Vietnamese. The Americans were interested in receiving the help but reluctant to make a commitment. Ho Chi Minh, an eternal optimist, saw every new development as another step closer to the realization of his dreams. When he heard that atom bombs had been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that the United Nations had been created in San Francisco and that the Soviet Union had entered the war against Japan, he could imagine the world war coming to an end and hoped that all those events would push the Vietnamese struggle closer to its finish. When the Japanese surrendered in August 1945, Ho Chi Minh and his comrades took full advantage of the vacuum created by the Japanese surrender. Ho Chi Minh was fortunate that the Japanese occupation authorities 191

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

immediately relinquished their power so that he could take over the government. The August 1945 Revolution was celebrated by thousands of people filling the streets all the way from Hanoi to Saigon. A new chapter had started in the history of Vietnam. To form a new government Ho Chi Minh moved from his guerrilla base in Tan Trao to Hanoi. Unfortunately, his jubilation was short lived. He was prevented from taking over all of Vietnam, as the Allied forces had decided to divide French Indochina into two separate zones. In a short speech on September 2, 1945 declaring national independence, he stated that the Vietnamese people had the right to the same privileges as the French and the Americans. Referring to the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America of 1776 he said, “All the peoples on the earth are equal from birth, all the peoples have a right to live and to be happy and free.” He also mentioned the Declaration of the Rights of Man of the French Revolution of 1791 which stated, “All men are born free and with equal rights, and must always remain free and have equal rights.”(Ref 1 p 323) Ho Chi Minh wanted to give the message that the Vietnamese were equal to all other citizens of the free world and wished to celebrate the same rights as the Americans and the French had been enjoying for two centuries. After liberating the North, Ho Chi Minh focused on South Vietnam as his dream was the liberation of the entire nation. He wanted the French to leave but they were reluctant. He hoped that America might act as a bridge between 192

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

him and the French and mediate a settlement. Although he presented himself as a nationalist, French authorities presented him as a Communist and the American government would not support a Communist regime in Vietnam. When Ho Chi Minh failed to receive the expected help from America, he declared to his followers, “We shall have to depend upon ourselves.”(Ref 1 p 345) Ho Chi Minh would have preferred a peaceful settlement with France to liberate all of Vietnam but he was unsuccessful because French President Charles de Gaulle would not negotiate until French authority was restored in Indochina. When Ho Chi Minh increased the pressure and pushed forward his demands, the French government advised America that total independence was out of the question. From the attitude of the French, Ho Chi Minh came to the conclusion that the French authorities had left him no alternative than a war of independence. At that time there were a number of Chinese troops in North Vietnam. The French authorities had made a deal with them to leave, upon which French troops were going to take over. The Chinese troops refused to leave the country and there were violent confrontations between them and the French troops. When the French realized that Ho Chi Minh had the support of the Chinese troops they showed a willingness to negotiate. Ho Chi Minh made a deal with French in which the latter agreed to accept the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and hold a referendum on the possible unification of North and South Vietnam. On the other hand Ho Chi Minh agreed to allow 1500 193

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

French troops to temporarily replace Chinese troops in North Vietnam. When he signed that agreement with the French authorities, he was criticized by his radical and militant followers but he was willing to become a diplomat as well as a guerrilla warrior. He was willing to lose a battle to win the war. When he was accused of being a traitor he reacted strongly, declaring, “I, Ho Chi Minh, have fought alongside my compatriots all my life for independence of our Fatherland. I would rather die than betray my country.”(Ref 1 p 364) In May 1946 Ho Chi Minh was invited to France for peace talks which failed as the French were unwilling to agree to complete freedom. During his stay Ho Chi Minh visited the places in Paris where he had started his political career as a naïve socialist and where he had been harassed by the local police. Now he was visiting as a head of state. When the negotiations fell through he decided to stay in France for a while and then travel back by ship. In September 1946, when in an interview he was asked how he was going to fight France, a superpower, he expressed his faith in his people by stating, “We have a weapon every bit as powerful as the most modern cannon…nationalism…”(Ref 1 p 379) While traveling back from France he visited India and met with Mohandas Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, who were struggling to win India’s independence from British rule. In spite of the differences in their philosophies and political strategies they had one thing in common: a dream of freedom for their people. While Ho Chi Minh was exploring all the diplomatic 194

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

options, he was also preparing for guerrilla war. His ultimate goal was to end French dominance and gain independence. The French were aware that the peace negotiations had entered a dead end street. They were covertly organizing a coup to overthrow Ho Chi Minh, the thorn in their soul, in order to install a puppet government of their own liking. France approached America for military assistance, advising them that if they did not stop Ho Chi Minh, he would join the Communist camp and French Vietnam would become the victim of “Chinese Imperialism.”(Ref 1 p 392) While Ho Chi Minh was preparing for a long guerrilla war, the French attacked with full force in October 1947, in hoping to capture him. Once again he escaped after another close encounter with death. After that episode he went underground to lead his dedicated guerrilla warriors. In 1949 when Mao defeated Chiang Kai Shek and established the People’s Republic of China, Ho Chi Minh sent his congratulations. In January 1950 he paid a visit to Mao who offered him moral and military support to fight the French. After that meeting Ho Chi Minh openly joined the socialist camp. He met with Stalin, seeking help for his cause. Stalin was in favor of socialism but not nationalism. At their meeting, Stalin offered him two chairs, one for nationalists and the other for internationalists and asked him to choose one. Ho Chi Minh, who seemed far wiser and perceptive than Stalin, responded, “Comrade Stalin, I would like to sit on both of them.”(Ref 1 p 422) He saw no conflict between his dreams of nationalism and socialism. The closer Ho Chi Minh moved towards China and 195

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

Russia, the more the French sought to convince America to help her defeat Ho Chi Minh, as he was a Communist threat. The French supported former emperor Bao Dai as the ruler of Vietnam. Bao Dai, as head of state, appointed former police chief Nguyen Van Tam as prime minister and ordered him to rout out the guerrillas. In 1953 the Navarre Plan was conceived, by which America was to support France militarily with the understanding that France would fight a short aggressive war and win. As time passed the French and Americans realized that they had underestimated Ho Chi Minh and his guerrilla warriors who were willing to fight till the end and for whom the only option was victory. As the tension escalated, Ho Chi Minh became the aggressor and attacked the French fort of Dien Bien Phu. The resulting French surrender was a great victory for Ho Chi Minh. Shortly thereafter a Geneva Conference was arranged, attended by Britain, the Soviet Union, China and the United States. In that meeting, Ho Chi Minh demanded the withdrawal of French troops and free elections the following year. In July 1954 a treaty was signed in which Vietnam was divided in two, with North Vietnam under the control of Ho Chi Minh and South Vietnam under French control. Ho Chi Minh, the eternal negotiator, agreed to the division of Vietnam for the sake of peace. He hoped that he would win in the promised elections and would unite North and South Vietnam within a year. Ho Chi Minh was trying to balance his roles as political leader and guerrilla warrior. He stated that they were “struggling in interna196

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

tional conferences as well as on the battlefields in order to attain (their) goal.”(Ref 1 p 460) In October 1954, after the Geneva conference, the French army left and Ho chi Minh’s army arrived in Hanoi and immediately formed a new government. While Ho Chi Minh was establishing his government in the North, Bao Dai was reorganizing his government in the South with Ngo Dinh Diem as the new prime minister. Diem had lived in the United States and was actively involved in Christian preaching. He looked for American support, stating that American Christians should fight a holy war against Communism in Vietnam. Many Americans were unimpressed by the sentimental and fanatic personality of Diem, considering him a “messiah without a message.”(Ref 1 p 468) Diem continued his efforts to enlist American support and finally in October 1954, President Eisenhower agreed to supply military aid directly rather than via the French. Alongside military support, the American CIA also planned the “Saigon Military Mission (SMM)”(Ref 2 p 452) for secret activities and created the “unconventional warfare unit.”(Ref 2 p 452) The autocratic Diem showed his true intentions when he refused to hold elections as promised at the Geneva conference. Americans had mixed feelings about Vietnamese politics. On one hand they wanted to support elections but were also afraid that Ho Chi Minh would win and that they would lose Vietnam to socialism. America and France therefore chose to support Diem’s decision to cancel the elections. 197

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

Ho Chi Minh was disappointed. Initially he focused on North Vietnam and tried his best to establish the socialist system that he had promised his people. He requested aid from China and Russia to build a socialist Vietnam. China quickly responded with an offer of 200 million dollars and Russia promised 100 million. Land reform was a major social, political and economic change in North Vietnam. “More than two million acres (800,000 hectares) of land were distributed to over two million farm families, a total of well over half of the total number of agricultural workers…”(Ref 1 p 488) The closer North Vietnam moved towards a socialist system, the more assistance South Vietnam received from America and France. By 1955 America was actively involved in overthrowing Ho Chi Minh’s democratically elected government through “sabotage by guerrilla groups sponsored by the CIA”.(Ref 2 p 478) America’s involvement in Vietnam steadily increased. Ho Chi Minh was dismayed when China and Russia turned on each other and shocked when in 1957 “the USSR suddenly proposed that the two Vietnams be admitted as separate states in the United Nations.”(Ref 1 p 500) He strongly protested Russia’s proposal as it was breaking his sacred dream in two. As time passed, Ho Chi Minh was overruled by militant communists in North Vietnam who were influenced by the Chinese Communist Party. Radical and cruel, they brutally killed thousands of landlords. When Ho Chi Minh objected, he was ignored. It became apparent to the world 198

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

that Ho Chi Minh’s dominant role within the Party was on the decline, as his more aggressive comrades wanted him to hand over the political power to them and become the “spiritual father of all Vietnamese people.” In South Vietnam, Diem became more and more autocratic and anti-communist. “Between 1957 and 1959 more than two thousand suspected Communists were executed.”(Ref 1 p 510) In Vietnam the dream of a peaceful revolution had turned into a violent nightmare in which landlords were being mercilessly killed in the North and Communists brutally murdered in the South. The Vietnamese people were paying a heavy price for their freedom and independence. As Diem became increasingly unpopular in South Vietnam, he began to encounter an even stronger resistance from the peasants. Finally Ho Chi Minh lost his patience, as his dream of creating a unified and free Vietnam was being thwarted at every turn. When he realized that he could not free South Vietnam by political means and negotiations, he decided to take up arms again and challenge France and America. He declared his agenda: “The fundamental path of development for the revolution in South Vietnam is that of violent struggle…”(Ref 1 p 512) In 1959 Ho Chi Minh gradually escalated the war for independence. Over the years Diem lost support and in 1963 faced a serious leadership crisis. When he refused to leave even under American pressure, the CIA organized a coup with the result that after surrendering to the leaders 199

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

of the coup, both Diem and his brother Ngo Dinh Nhu were executed. America had opened a Pandora’s box. Conditions in both Vietnam and America became more volatile and unpredictable when President Kennedy was assassinated and Vice President Lyndon Johnson took over. America’s support of South Vietnam gave Mao more incentive to support North Vietnam. In February 1965, Viet Cong forces attacked a US Special Forces camp, inflicting high casualties. Within a few days “President Johnson ordered retaliatory air strikes over North Vietnam…”(Ref, p 543) The war escalated and so did America’s involvement in Vietnam. By the end of 1965 American forces in Vietnam numbered 200,000. The political climate worldwide, including that of America was changing. Americans were becoming critical of their government’s involvement in Cuba as well as Vietnam, resulting in an increase in anti-war feelings and protests. The American government and the CIA made a number of attempts to eliminate Ho Chi Minh but failed. He kept the morale of his guerrilla warriors very high. With the passage of time Americans realized that they were fighting a losing battle. In spite of being a superpower they could not conquer the dedicated and committed Vietnamese who were willing to sacrifice their lives for freedom. Ho Chi Minh did not live to see his country free and united. He died on Sep 2, 1969. Nearly 100,000 people attended his funeral services. In July 1976, North and 200

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

South Vietnam were unified into the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, fulfilling Ho Chi Minh’s dream of unity, independence, freedom and socialism. America’s role was as secret as some of Ho Chi Minh’s activities. Peter Harclerode wrote in his book Fighting Dirty…The Inside Story of Covert Operations from Ho Chi Minh to Osama bin Laden “It was not until 1973 that the US government admitted that US troops, predominantly members of the US Special Forces, had been killed on operations in Laos and Cambodia since 1965.”(Ref 2 p 1003) While studying the life and struggle of Ho Chi Minh, I wondered whether he should be held responsible for the brutal killings of thousands of landlords in North Vietnam as a part of land reform. There was a period following the success of the revolution when Ho Chi Minh could not keep control of his government and movement. He realized that the violent tendencies of his radical and militant comrades had spiraled out of control. Following in the footsteps of their Chinese comrades they had resorted to torture. He appealed to their conscience by stating that some comrades “are still committing the error of using torture. It is a savage method used by imperialists, capitalists and feudal elements to master the masses and the revolution. Why must we, who are in possession of a just program and a just rationale, make use of such brutal methods?”(Ref 1 p 478) Unfortunately Ho Chi Minh’s plea fell on deaf ears and thousands of landlords lost their lives. Ho Chi Minh was 201

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

shocked to see his Communist comrades behaving like capitalists, and socialists behaving like imperialists. Ho Chi Minh is long gone but his memory is enshrined in the minds of his disciples and all those people who have a sense of pride in their homeland and are willing to sacrifice their lives for the sake of freedom and independence. There was no doubt in anybody’s mind that Ho Chi Minh was a man of integrity and a committed and dedicated leader, respected by his friends and foes alike. He will be remembered for generations to come and Ho Chi Minh City and the trail which bears his name will remind us of that revolutionary saint who was both a guerrilla warrior and a statesman.

REFERENCES Ref. 1 Duiker, William. Ho Chi Minh: A Life. New York: Hyperion, 2000. Ref. 2 Harclerode, Peter. Fighting Dirty: The Inside Story of Covert Operations from Ho Chi Minh to Osama bin Laden. London: Cassell & Co., 2001.

202

CHE GUEVARA

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

— CHE GUEVARA — A SYMBOL OF ARMED STRUGGLE AGAINST IMPERIALISM

Che Guevara is one of the most loved and hated, adored and despised revolutionaries of the twentieth century. By the time he celebrated his 32nd birthday, he had established himself not only as an intellectual and political activist but also as a well-respected guerrilla warrior. After his mysterious death before his fortieth birthday, he became a symbol of anti-imperialism and a source of inspiration for all those who struggle and dream of a just world. Che Guevara was revolutionary who practised what he preached. He not only talked about but also lived socialistic values and philosophy. He was a very creative person. He not only created poems, essays and concepts but also revolutions, and then exported them to all the cities, countries and continents that suffered because of political oppression and economic exploitation. While he loved the poor and the oppressed, he hated capitalists and imperialists. He believed that the only way to deal with capitalism and imperialism was through armed struggle. After the successful Cuban Revolution his friend and mentor Fidel Castro offered him honorary citizenship and 205

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

the respected post of Minister of Industries and requested him to represent Cuba at the United Nations. Feeling stifled in the bureaucratic life, he left Cuba to lead a guerrilla war against the United States of America in other countries. After his mysterious disappearance from Cuba, the CIA, with the help of the Bolivian government, hunted him down and killed him in 1967. His body disappeared, except for his hands which were shown to the public by the Bolivian authorities to prove that they had captured this most wanted man. Che Guevara’s enemies were worried that his grave would become a holy shrine for all the anti-imperialist revolutionaries of the world. They did not realize that his selfless sacrifices had found him a permanent place in the hearts of millions of freedom fighters worldwide. Che Guevara might be physically dead but his legacy has inspired people everywhere to continue their struggle to make this world a better place to live. All his life he searched and struggled for an ideal man…a New Socialist Man. He was an idealist who sacrificed his life on the altar of his idealism. After reading the biographies, diaries, letters and speeches of Ernesto “Che” Guevara, I became quite intrigued with his personality, philosophy and political strategy. In this essay I will share a few glimpses of those significant factors that helped me understand and appreciate the making of a philosopher and guerrilla warrior who created and exported revolutions and dreamt of changing the world. 206

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

When I read about the early life of Che Guevara I discovered that he was “wild” from the very beginning.(Ref 1 p 18) His parents, who themselves had hot tempers, could not discipline him. He would not listen to his elders and would run away from home to the bush, an interesting characteristic for a young boy who would become a renowned guerrilla warrior as an adult. Che was also forced to face challenges from an early age when he was diagnosed with asthma. At the age of two his asthma was so severe that his parents had to spend sleepless nights watching their son gasp for air. His illness became quite a strain for the family and his parents even contemplated divorce. Because of his asthma Che could not attend school regularly until he was nine years old. That was also a mixed blessing. Being deprived of the regular teaching and discipline of the school he formed a very close bond with his mother, which lasted all their lives. Che Guevara’s mother Celia was an atheist and had asked the teachers to exempt him from religious studies.(Ref 1 p 20) His father Ernesto had a fascination with politics. He was quite interested in the Spanish Civil War (1936-1938) and when Adolf Hitler invaded Poland in 1939 he became concerned that he might invade Argentina. He travelled to different cities in the country and made public speeches against him. Being brought up by an atheist mother and a political activist father must have played a significant role in the development of the political consciousness of young Che. His mother was also a socialist at heart. She used to visit 207

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

and help the poor, and frequently invited the hungry and homeless to her house to give them food and shelter. Che deeply admired his mother’s altruistic activities and called it “the discovery of the world through the service entrance.”(Ref 1 p 39) By the time he became a teenager he had developed a critical mind and a rebellious personality. He questioned anything and everything including the social and political values of his community and the world. He did not want to be a follower and very early in his life began to discover his own philosophy and style. To discover his own path in life he studied philosophy and started creating a “philosophical dictionary”(Ref 1 p 37) in which he compiled quotations of great writers and philosophers on various subjects ranging from sexuality to spirituality, from religious dogma to political consciousness. His teachers were impressed that as a teenager he was seriously trying to study Sigmund Freud’s works on psychoanalysis, stories by Jack London, the poetry of Pablo Neruda and Walt Whitman and the economic theories of Karl Marx. Young Che frequently engaged in heated and passionate discussions with his peers as well as his elders. Alongside his critical mind, he had also developed a sharp tongue. Many of his contemporaries used to feel offended by his brutal honesty but he was unconcerned. He believed he was in search of personal and universal truths. Che Guevara seemed to have a deep dislike for rules, and would often ignore the basics of personal hygiene and cleanliness. He rarely took a shower and his friends started 208

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

calling him “El Loco” (Crazy) Guevara and “Chancho” (Pig) as he would boast, “It’s been twenty-four weeks since I washed this rugby shirt.”(Ref 1 p 36) Che had an inquisitive mind. He was as interested in science as he was in literature and philosophy so he decided to become an engineer. But when he nursed his dying grandmother, to whom he was very attached, he decided to become a physician, a healer. So he applied to medical school and was accepted. As a teenager he dreamed of serving an ailing and suffering humanity. He described his ambition, his goal, his ideal and his dream, “I dreamed of becoming a famous investigator…of working indefatigably to find something that could be definitively placed at the disposition of humanity.”(Ref 1 p 42) While studying medicine he was also exploring his creative, literary and philosophical interests and passions. He was so impressed by revolutionary poets like Pablo Neruda that he started composing poems himself. But his poetry was not a reflection of the modernistic philosophy of “art for art’s sake”, it was rather for a cause, a noble cause and being a progressive writer he was fascinated with the ideal of dying for one’s cause. He wrote a poem in January 1947 at age eighteen: Die, yes but riddled with Bullets, destroyed by the bayonets, if not, no. Drowned, no… A memory more lasting than any name Is to fight, to die fighting(Ref 1 p 44)

209

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

This prophetic poem provides a glimpse of the psyche of a revolutionary, a guerrilla warrior in the making, who fantasizes becoming a social reformer and flirts with the notion of death. Revolution was Che’s beloved and he was mentally preparing himself not only to adore her from a distance but also to die in her arms, with peace, dignity and above all glory. He would become a martyr, as death would make him immortal. In hindsight the poem sounds so prophetic. One of the ironies of Che’s life was that the man who was one of the foremost leaders of guerrilla war in Latin America was rejected by the Argentine army because he suffered from asthma. Those naïve Argentinean officers did not realize that commitment and dedication to a cause far outweighs any physical illness or disability. Che was overjoyed by this rejection. His biographer Jon Lee Anderson wrote, “During his first year at the university, Ernesto was called by Argentina’s military draft. In the physical check up, his asthma was detected, and he was rejected on grounds of ‘diminished physical abilities’. The decision saved him from spending a year away from his studies in some army barracks, and he was overjoyed, telling friends he ‘thanked his shitty lungs for doing something useful for a change.’”(Ref 1 p 45) While in university Che not only studied medicine but also broadened his philosophical horizons by acquainting himself with the works of writers like Bertrand Russell and Aldus Huxley. His younger brother Roberto was shocked to see Che studying his father’s twenty-five volumes of 210

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

Contemporary History of the World. It appears as though he was doing his homework preparing a philosophical basis for his future role as a political activist. He was becoming preoccupied with the political struggles of underdeveloped countries to gain freedom and independence. He read Jawaharlal Nehru’s book The Discovery of India with great interest. He was becoming aware of the dynamics of world politics and realizing that Britain and United States of America were the imperialistic powers. He began to realize that industrialization and economic independence were essential for poor and underdeveloped countries to maintain political independence. Che had two great passions: traveling and writing. His philosophical dictionary was composed of writings of other philosophers starting with Ibsen’s quotation “Education is the capacity to confront the situations posed by life.”(Ref 1 p 69) He started a diary and like many other famous writers of the 20th century including Anais Nin, Franz Kafka and Virginia Woolf, used his diary as a resource for his creative and philosophical writings. Che remained passionate about his diary writing till the last days of his life. During his studies at medical school, Che was convinced that medicine could play a significant role in improving quality of life through health education and the prevention of diseases caused by infections and malnutrition. He became a strong supporter of social medicine. Che was concerned with the social and political issues not only in Argentina, but also throughout the whole of 211

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

Central America. He was becoming aware that the United States in spite of posing as a symbol of peace, justice and democracy was controlling the masses in poor countries and exploiting them for economic gain. He also realized that the United States was undermining social and political reforms in Latin American countries by supporting army generals and autocratic dictators. As time passed, Che became more and more disturbed by his observations and experiences. Che travelled to different parts of America and then settled in Guatemala for a while. It was there that he witnessed the first battle between capitalism and Communism, between America and Guatemala. Anderson wrote, “Accused of tilting toward Communism, Guatemala’s leftleaning government was coming under mounting attack from Washington for its own 1952 agrarian reform bill… By the end of 1953, the battle lines were clearly drawn between Guatemala and Washington…”(Ref 1 p 123) It was in Guatemala that the rebel found the cause and after realizing “how terrible these capitalistic octopuses are” that Che decided to become an “authentic revolutionary.”(Ref 1 p 126) During his stay in Guatemala Che was becoming more and more stirred up by the role of the USA in Latin America. He was appalled to see how the Catholic Church was joining hands with the American CIA. There was a time when Che entertained the idea of combining his socialism with his medical profession by becoming a revolutionary doctor but he changed his mind, as the profession of medicine was too clean for his taste and personality. 212

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

During his stay in Guatemala Che met Peruvian political exile Hilda Gadea and they fell in love not only with each other but also with the idea of socialist revolution. But their love for revolution was still in the infatuation stage. They were not ready to make a commitment and risk their lives. Che was impressed by Ho Chi Minh and his antiimperialistic philosophy and struggle. He was fascinated with all the leaders who had inspired their countrymen to take a stand against American domination and exploitation. Che’s first encounter with violence occurred when Guatemala was attacked by American planes. He was thrilled by the experience. The latent guerrilla warrior in him enjoyed the violence while the doctor in him wanted to help the wounded; thus he volunteered his services to the Health Brigade. The conflict between the warrior and the healer stayed with him for most of his life. Both instincts, to kill and to heal, were intimately connected. After the American attack on Guatemala, there was a collective outcry and people from many walks of life and schools of thought united under one flag because they now had a common enemy…America. As the crisis in Guatemala escalated, American President Eisenhower ordered more fighter-bombers to attack Guatemala. At the same time he “engaged in a blocking maneuver to thwart Guatemala’s request for a special session of the UN Security Council to discuss the crisis.”(Ref 1 p 149) Although Che was an Argentine, he identified with Guatemala because he empathized with all the oppressed people of Latin America who were the victims of Washington’s foreign policy. Che 213

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

was appalled to see the influence the US had on the UN. Gradually he lost all hope in both of them because all the Western countries supported the US and eventually abandoned Guatemala to defend herself alone. He felt sad to see Guatemala at the mercy of America. Che became so bitter that he decided to join “an armed militia organized by the Communist Youth.”(Ref 1 p 151) At one time Che suggested to Hilda that Guatemalans could prevail against America if they fought a guerrilla war. When the Americans, who virtually ran Guatemala through economic and military channels, got their man Carlos Castillo Armas installed as President, all Communists were arrested. Hilda was one of those rounded up and sent to jail while Che had to find refuge in the Argentinean embassy. After much contemplation and soul-searching, he decided not to return to his homeland, opting instead to go to Mexico which had become the mecca for all left wing revolutionaries. Hilda eventually escaped from prison and joined Che in Mexico. By the time Che arrived in Mexico he was emotionally prepared to follow the road of revolution. His mindset is reflected in his letter to his family in response to the gifts he received. He wrote, “My slogan is little luggage, strong legs and a fakir’s stomach.”(Ref 1 p 157) Mentally he had been traveling on the road to become a guerrilla warrior. It is interesting to note that by the time Che moved from Guatemala to Mexico, he was already known to American intelligence. The CIA records showed “a single sheet of paper about a twenty-five-year-old Argentine 214

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

physician who had arrived in town the previous January to study medical care amid social revolution. …the file for Ernesto Guevara, known as ‘Che’, became one of the thickest in the CIA’s global records.”(Ref 1 p 159) While Che was struggling to find a job in Mexico he was also contemplating his political future. He was exploring ways to join the armed struggle as he “was convinced that the American intervention in Guatemala was merely the first skirmish in what would be a global confrontation between the United States and Communism.” (Ref 1 p 163) While Che and Hilda were volunteering their services in a hospital in Mexico, they unexpectedly met their Cuban friend Nico Lopaz who they had known in Guatemala. Lopaz told them that Cuban revolutionaries were trying their best to get their leaders Fidel and his brother Raul Castro released from prison and were putting pressure on the dictator Batista to hold democratic elections in Cuba.(Ref 1 p 165) Since America was supporting Batista, he won the unopposed election. President Eisenhower was so pleased that he sent Vice President Richard Nixon to congratulate him. After winning the election Batista released Fidel Castro, his brother Raul and eighteen other prisoners from the Isle of Pines on Mother’s Day, as an act of generosity, not realizing how these prisoners would later change the history of Cuba. After his release, Fidel Castro, who was a revolutionary at heart, became even more determined to change the future of his country. He organized his supporters in Cuba 215

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

and then went to Mexico to plan a revolution. In Mexico Castro met Che and was impressed with his commitment to the revolution. Although he was an Argentine, he volunteered his services in the war of Cuban liberation. Che and Castro joined hands in the training of a guerrilla army as “they identified a common nemesis…the United States.”(Ref 1 p 178) Che identified so strongly with the struggle of Cubans that he wrote in one of his letters, “My future is linked with that of the Cuban Revolution. I either triumph with it or die there…”(Ref 1 p 197) It is obvious that Che was ready to sacrifice his life for his cause, his ideal, his dream, his revolution. I find it quite fascinating from a psychological point of view that Che, who was from Argentina, was willing to sacrifice his life for Cubans. His identity had undergone a major transformation. He could identify with all the oppressed people of Latin America. “I identified totally with my comrades of the cause… The concept of ‘I’ disappeared totally to give place to the concept of ‘Us’….”(Ref 1 p 200) There were many occasions when he was asked why he was fighting for Cuba and he would say, “I consider my fatherland to be not only Argentina, but all of America.”(Ref 1 p 309) Che, because of his introspective nature, was able to articulate the psychological change many social reformers experience but are unable to formulate. When Che joined the revolutionary army as a soldier he also accepted Fidel Castro as his leader and commander and wrote a wonderful poem in his honor stating, 216

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

“Let’s go, ardent prophet of the dawn, along remote and unmarked paths to liberate the green caiman you so love… When the first shot sounds and in virginal surprise the entire jungle awakens, there, at your side, serene combatants…you will have us”(Ref 1 p 201) Che was aware that guerrilla warriors were the travellers of dangerous roads to unknown destinations. For his revolutionary mission Fidel Castro bought the yacht Granma from an American, boarded with his 82 comrades including Che and left for Cuba on November 25, 1956.(Ref 1 p 207) Those 82 dedicated soldiers fought a guerrilla war in the jungles of Cuba for nearly two years. For Che it was a profound experience. He not only had close encounters with death, he also had an opportunity to prove to himself and others that in spite of his asthma he was a remarkable warrior and a brave leader. During his two years of battle against Batista, Che crossed a line. Anderson wrote, “Ernesto [Che] Guevara was now at war, trying to create a revolution… He had crossed a boundary that was invisible to outsiders and had entered a domain where lives could be taken for an ideal and where the end did justify the means…he awoke each day with the prospect of killing and dying for this cause.”(Ref 1 p 233) Che’s life during the guerrilla war was a profound paradox: he was willing to embrace violence to establish peace. On one hand he was a murderer and on the other 217

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

hand a healer, one moment a killer and the next moment a savior. There were moments during the war when he had to choose between the first aid kit and the ammunition boxes. During those two years he saved his comrades’ lives but killed his enemies. It seemed that Che, like an experienced actor, was able to play with perfection his multiple roles on the stage of revolution. To perform well he had developed an emotional distance, a “remarkable detachment” from violence.(Ref 1 p 237) Castro was so impressed by his courage, dedication and leadership that he made him commander. Though very demanding of his comrades, Che Guevara quickly earned their respect and loyalty. After the revolution Fidel Castro offered Che some of the highest posts in the new government. Che became Minister of Industries and president of the National Bank. He had a dream of industrializing Latin America, as he believed that economic independence was as important as political independence. Before Che assumed his ministerial responsibilities, he proceeded to get rid of his enemies by arranging secret trials and ordering the executions of hundreds of military and police officers of the Batista government. During that time he was known as the “supreme prosecutor.”(Ref 1 p 387) His friends and family members were shocked to see how Che had hardened during the guerrilla war. One side of his personality had become cruel and brutal. When one of his friends challenged his dark side Che told him that in guerrilla war you could not afford to be weak. “Look, in this thing either you kill first or else you get killed.”(Ref 1 390) As a Minister of Industries, Che visited countries in 218

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

Africa, Asia and Europe. He wanted to present the Cuban Revolution as a role model and inspire other revolutionaries to take up an armed struggle against imperialism. He made a special trip to Russia to build a Communist bridge between Russia and Cuba. It was he who convinced the Russian government to offer economic and military support to Cuba and protect it from Washington. The CIA made a number of unsuccessful attempts to kill Che, Fidel and Raul, and the American government attempted to overthrow the Cuban government by enlisting Cuban expatriates for the infamous invasion of the Bay of Pigs. When the Soviet Union offered to install nuclear missiles in Cuba, Che was delighted, as he was fantasizing about using nuclear weapons against America whom he hated with a passion. Premier Nikita Khrushchev stated, “The Americans only understand force. We can give them back the same medicine they gave us in Turkey [where the United States had installed nuclear missiles pointing at the USSR]…”(Ref 1 p 525) Che was worried that before the USSR could install the nuclear missiles in Cuba, America would discover the details and sabotage the plan. When he expressed his concerns, Khrushchev tried to reassure him by saying, “You don’t have to worry; there will be no problem from the US. And if there is a problem, we will send the Baltic Fleet.”(Ref 1 p 529) His fears were well founded. “Fidel Castro learned that Khrushchev had made a deal with JFK behind his back—offering to pull out the missiles in exchange for a promise not to invade Cuba and a withdrawal of US Jupiter missiles from Turkey.”(Ref 1 p 544) Nobody would have imagined that Che, who was fascinated with 219

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

violence, in his own bizarre and surrealistic way “would bring the world to the brink of nuclear war.”(Ref 1 p 530) Che gradually became disillusioned with the Soviet government. He could see that they were not committed to the principles of socialism—they were not practising what they preached. Being a sincere, outspoken and brutally honest person he warned them that they were “doomed to return to capitalism” and fail in their revolution.(Ref 1 p 697) Che represented Cuba at meetings of the UN in New York in 1964 where he openly criticized American policies, stating, “Cuba is one of the trenches of freedom in the world. Situated a few steps away from US imperialism, we have shown by our actions, our daily example, that in the present conditions a people can liberate themselves and keep themselves free.”(Ref 3) He had chosen America as his Enemy Number One and in turn became America’s number one enemy. Che remained in Cuba for a few years to help establish the new regime but being a guerrilla warrior at heart he could not remain an administrator for very long. His restless soul longed for jungles and the battleground. He had tasted blood and the thrill of guerrilla war. In the depths of his soul he believed that the guerrilla warrior was like a mystic following the motto of “little luggage, strong legs and a fakir’s stomach”. He heard the call and left Cuba to organize armed struggle against imperialism. He wanted to export revolution to all the continents of the world, to wage a global war against American Imperialism. In 1965 he mysteriously disappeared from Cuba and assumed a new identity. 220

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

While Che was in hiding he was training guerrilla warriors. He realized that in many ways he was naïve and idealistic. He could not find leaders like Fidel Castro to lead the revolution nor warriors with his dedication and discipline. During his underground days he became angry, resentful and bitter against America. Finally he released an article in which he expressed his profound views that people who believed in socialistic revolution had to embrace hate, not love, because he saw “Hatred as an element of the struggle; a relentless hatred of the enemy, impelling us above and beyond the natural limitations that man is heir to, and transforming him into an effective, violent, seductive and cold killing machine. Our soldiers must be thus; a people without hatred cannot vanquish a brutal enemy.”(Ref 2 p 174) Che believed in fighting fire with fire but finally the fire of his enemy consumed him. It took America two years to find him and hunt him down in Bolivia with the help of the Bolivian government. After his assassination in 1967 his body was secretly buried except for his hands, which were amputated to confirm his death. All his life Che played with fire and death. He was dangerously adventurous and risked his life many times for his cause, his ideal and his revolution. Many felt he was “driven perhaps by some suicidal impulse.”(Ref 3 p 9) In Che the homicidal and suicidal impulses were mysteriously and mystically intertwined. A man with tremendous potential, courage, insight and wisdom was killed before his 40th birthday. It took thirty years for his dear ones to succeed in their quest to have Bolivian authorities disclose the location of 221

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

his secret grave. In 1997 his body was brought back to Cuba where he was buried with great honor. Even after his death Che has remained a symbol of armed struggle against imperialism. He was so committed and dedicated that instead of leading a luxurious life as a government official, he chose to sacrifice his life for the revolution. In Bolivia even his worst enemy, observing his execution, stated that he died with dignity and grace. After his death Che Guevara became a myth, a legend, and a role model for millions of revolutionaries who wear his image on their t-shirts as for them he “represents the highest and noblest attainment an individual can achieve.”(Ref 3 p 9) Even Jean Paul Sartre, the great existentialist philosopher of the 20th century, complimented him by stating that Che was “not only an intellectual but also the most complete human being of our age.”(Ref 4) As American imperialism grows in the world, so does the popularity of Che, as he has become one of the greatest symbols of armed struggle against imperialism. He had the infinite capacity to love and hate at the same time.

REFERENCES Ref. 1 Anderson, Jon Lee. Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life. New York: Grove Press, 1997. Ref. 2 Guevara, Che. Guerrilla Warfare. USA: Scholarly Resources, 1997. Ref. 3 Guevara, Che. Che Guevara Speaks. USA: Pathfinder Publishers, 2000. Ref. 4 James, Daniel. Che Guevara: A Biography. USA: Cooper Square Press, 2001.

222

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

P A R T

T W O

—•—

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE AND VIOLENCE

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

— PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE AND PEACE — CONCLUSION

Reading the biographies of social reformers and revolutionaries of the 20th century was a fascinating as well as an unsettling experience. I have learned far more from their life stories than from the many textbooks of psychiatry I have studied over the years. Those biographies were gold mines of knowledge and wisdom. The more I read, the more aware I became of the complexities of the personalities of those great men, and how they dealt with their conflicts at personal and political levels. No wonder their struggles and personal life stories became a source of inspiration for their communities in particular and for humanity in general. Over the decades they have become role models for millions of people all over the world. The more I analyzed their life stories the more I became aware of the similarities in their personalities and philosophies and differences in their political strategies because of the diverse social, cultural and political forces that shaped their struggles for freedom, justice and peace. In this essay I will try to highlight some of the milestones of that political and social journey of these anti-colonial and anti-imperial freedom fighters that changed the lives of millions all over the world. Those biographies made me 225

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

appreciate the men who tried their best to make this world a better place to live. While studying the biographies of reformers and revolutionaries of the twentieth century, I became aware that those men developed a heightened sense of social consciousness at an early age. In addition to a welldeveloped personal identity, they also developed a strong sense of social identity by identifying with a special group in their communities. For some it was class, for others it was race, for some it was religion and for others it was nationality that provided the foundation for their social identity. These personalities were quite sensitive to the injustices in their community, which made it easy for them to identify with the oppressed. When they saw people in their social environment suffering because of prejudice and systemic exploitation, they developed a desire to change the situation. Even as children these reformers and revolutionaries were more creative than their siblings and classmates and usually followed non-traditional paths in their thinking and behavior. These young men often had difficulty accepting authority, especially if they perceived it as irrational, unjust, unfair and authoritarian. Their inquisitive, ever-questioning, rebellious, and even confrontative attitude was sometimes perceived as rude and disrespectful, which brought them into conflicts with their families, teachers and authority figures. While their parents, teachers and elders of the community tried their best to mould and encourage them to follow 226

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

the highway of tradition, those revolutionary teenagers chose to follow the trails of their hearts. Each one of them said to himself in the privacy of his heart, “I want to do it my way, not the right way.” At every step in their lives they challenged the norms of their families, schools and communities. As teenagers they were more against the old rather than in favor of new traditions. Many of them were perceived as rebels without a cause. Some had to experience a breakdown in their family lives and social relationships before they matured to achieve a breakthrough. There were times these teenagers felt like outsiders even in their own homes and communities. While some of them felt they were blessed, others felt cursed. From an early age, these reformers and revolutionaries seemed dissatisfied with the prevalent norms and traditions, which compelled their restless souls to constantly search for alternative ways of thinking and living. As they left their homes and schools to earn a living and broaden their existential horizons, they often met or became aware of non-traditional people and unconventional organizations which attracted and inspired them. Over time these people became mentors and role models who introduced them to revolutionary writers and philosophers, and gave them a sense of belonging, a feeling many did not experience in their homes and communities. Gradually this family of the heart or mind became more significant than their own families. Being in the company of their mentors, attending meetings of like-minded people and reading the books of 227

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

progressive philosophers, these young adults developed political consciousness which provided a frame of reference for their rebellious ideas. Gradually these rebels found a cause. It was also interesting to read that many of these revolutionaries endured humiliating personal and family experiences that compelled them to become actively involved in politics. There was a time in the lives of reformers and revolutionaries when their identity underwent a major transformation. That was the point at which their “I” became part of an “Us.” They started identifying with their communities and their nations. Subsequently they became less concerned with their own rights and more passionate about helping the whole herd, the whole tribe, the whole nation. They could often see the entire group suffering, and as they matured they realized that the only way to end suffering and injustice was to change the social and political system. Their thinking gradually became systemic and they started dreaming of a just community and a free society. They became aware of the invisible chains of slavery and servitude their whole nation was wearing and the desire to free their nation gradually transformed into a passion and a dream. With the consolidation of the “Us” identity, there was also a crystallization of a “Them” identity. Over the years they identified the group they perceived as oppressors. Gradually they defined their enemy and decided to join the battle. As these reformers and revolutionaries gained 228

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

experience and maturity, they realized that social and political change demanded a commitment and willingness to sacrifice wealth, family, job and many other things. They realized that their perceived enemy was powerful and had extensive resources to maintain the oppressive system. To defeat the enemy, they needed strong and committed fighters who were prepared to offer the ultimate sacrifice— their lives. Many light-weight and medium-weight revolutionaries were reluctant to go all the way and offer their lives to the revolution, but others had such courage and strength of character that they were ready to give their lives for their goal and dream, the revolution. Convinced in their hearts that their ideal was worth sacrificing their lives, some revolutionaries chose to take a stand through hunger strikes, while others joined an armed struggle. Gradually the reformers and revolutionaries realized that bringing about a social change was no less difficult than moving mountains. They not only needed faith in their goal, they also needed great stamina, as the revolution demanded the endurance of a marathon runner. People who became easily disappointed were poor candidates for such a movement. Revolutionaries who had faith in their ideals and who were willing to make personal sacrifices were gradually accepted as leaders by those who found them a fountain of courage and a source of inspiration. Their charisma inspired others to leave home and family and follow them wherever the cause might lead. 229

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

As their following grew, their influence and political power increased and once the movement had achieved a critical mass, the likelihood of bringing about a social and political change became more believable. Finally a stage came when these revolutionaries were able to mobilize the masses, be they peasants, farmers, factory workers or other oppressed and suffering groups who could relate to the ideals and goals of that political movement. In the life of many revolutionaries a point arrived in the struggle when they were perceived by the authorities as a threat. In many cases they were charged and either jailed or executed. Some leaders decided to leave the country, as they believed they could better serve the cause in exile, while others went underground and changed their identities. They feared that if they left the country, the movement would lose momentum. Sometimes leaders who opted to leave consulted with others who chose to stay and together they coordinated the struggle. Revolutionaries who left were also responsible for mobilizing world opinion in support of the struggle against their oppressive government; they appealed to sympathetic governments of the world to apply political pressure through boycotts and economic sanctions. Many revolutionaries eventually felt they could not achieve significant social and political changes in their communities through peaceful means as their enemies spoke only the language of power and violence. In such circumstances these revolutionaries chose the road of armed struggle. In doing so, they were aware that they 230

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

would be perceived as “terrorists” as they were breaking the law and embracing violence. Many times when asked why they turned to violence, they responded that they had experienced an inner conflict between observing the law and following their conscience. When the latter won over the former, they were willing to accept the consequences imposed by the community or the court. They believed that breaking the law or embracing violence was a means to an end, not an end in itself. In their own eyes they were not criminals. Some felt they had to fight fire with fire as a show of strength to their enemies. After months, years, and even decades of struggle, many revolutionaries succeeded in weakening the power of their oppressors, and ultimately returned power to the people. In some cases their oppressors relinquished the power voluntarily, while in others it was taken by force through a bloody revolution. When the freedom movement was successful, a new country was born, or the dictators left, a new government came into existence and the revolutionaries and freedom fighters celebrated the end of their struggle. After the celebration of the success of the revolution, the politics changed and the leaders of opposition became the leaders of the nation. Some of them were able to deliver what they had promised, and established peace, while others could not handle the power and became as ruthless as their predecessors, imprisoning and executing thousands of their enemies. It was not surprising that their followers felt betrayed and disillusioned; they realized that power had corrupted their leaders. The oppressed transformed into 231

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

oppressors and the cycle of violence was passed from one generation to the next. After completing my study of great leaders of the 20th century I came to the conclusion that some of them believed in evolution and others in revolution. Some focused on psychological changes and wanted to educate their people and help them become better human beings, while others focused on social and political systems and attempted to create just and humane models of government and legal structures. I believe that in spite of their differences in philosophy, political orientation and strategy, they complemented each other. Human growth is a mysterious process, sometimes slow, and sometimes rapid. Changes may occur over years, decades or even centuries. Human evolution is a very slow process, and some of us are more patient than others. During the political struggles of the 20th century, many communities gained freedom and new countries appeared on the world map. In most cases thousands, even millions of people paid a heavy price, losing their precious lives or the lives of their dear ones. Was the dream worth the sacrifice? For some it was, as they believed that future generations would enjoy the fruits of their labor. For others it started a cycle of violence, one that might be passed on from one generation to another. All men and women who harbor dreams of freedom, justice and peace must ask themselves: Are these dreams worth dying for? Are these dreams worth killing for? Reformers like Martin Luther King, Jr., the Dalai Lama 232

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

and Mohandas Gandhi and their disciples believe they are worth dying for, while revolutionaries like Che Guevara, Nelson Mandela, Ho Chi Minh and their followers believe that the dreams are worth living for, worth dying for and even worth killing for. In the end it is for each one of us to decide which road in life we wish to follow and what choices we wish to make at a personal and social, national and international level, if we hope to make this world a better place to live, love and grow for future generations.

233

FRANTZ FANON

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

— FRANTZ FANON — THE PSYCHOLOGY OF VIOLENT REVOLUTION

Frantz Fanon was one of the psychiatrists, philosophers and political activists of the twentieth century who inspired many political leaders and movements to bring about a revolution in their communities and countries. His book The Wretched of the Earth became a bible for revolutionaries around the world. It has been translated into more than eighteen languages and has sold more than a million copies just in English. The book has an introduction by Jean Paul Sartre, the famous existentialist philosopher. In this essay I will share a few glimpses of the life and philosophy of that extraordinary man. Fanon was born in Martinique in 1925 and died of cancer at the early age of forty. He received his training in psychiatry in France. While he was working in a psychiatric hospital, looking after Algerian rebels, he identified with them to such an extent that he resigned from his job and joined the Algerian liberation movement. He later wrote several books reflecting on his professional and political experiences and shared his observations and insights. He believed that “de-colonization is always a violent phenomenon”(Ref 1 p 35) because in that process one political 237

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

system is completely replaced with another. Since its aim is far more than simply reforming the system, it cannot take place through peaceful means. He based his theory on the hypothesis that de-colonization is an attempt to undo colonization and since colonization is a violent phenomenon in which imperialistic and colonial powers exploit, manipulate and dehumanize the native people, the de-colonization attempts to undo that process and purge all the violence that natives have absorbed over the years, decades and centuries. That is the only way for them to liberate themselves and be free. Fanon systematically describes all the psychological stages of the transformation of colonization and de-colonization. He states that in the colonization process the colonial powers suppress and oppress the native through police and army. On the surface these oppressive organizations are supposed to keep peace but in reality they suppress people’s voices and repress people’s feelings. That oppression, suppression and repression causes either depression or dissent. Consequently, people who decide to change their social and political situation through revolution have to accept violence. They realize that in many cases their conditions have to worsen before they improve, and that the colonial authorities will escalate the violence before they relinquish power and control. These people and organizations realize they have to face harsh realities, make sacrifices and trust that the ends will justify the means. When we visit these colonies, Fanon notes, we come across two parts of town, the rich, prosperous and affluent 238

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

part inhabited by settlers, and the poor, underdeveloped and underprivileged part inhabited by the natives. In such a dichotomy, class differences join hands with race issues. On one side of the town we see a rich race of British, French or Americans while on the other side of the town we witness a poor race of Asians, Arabs, Africans or Latin Americans. He states, “The cause is the consequence, you are rich because you are white, you are white because you are rich. This is why Marxist analysis should always be slightly stretched every time we have to do with the colonial problem.”(Ref 1 p 40) Fanon believed that to justify their oppression, the oppressors usually use religion, as “a reference to divine right is necessary to legitimize this statutory difference.”(Ref 1 p 40) They rationalize their inhumane treatment of natives by calling it God’s will and promising the poor a prosperous life hereafter, a heaven. But the revolutionary wants to see a heaven on earth. He wants to face reality rather than live in fantasy. He prefers to live in a wise man’s hell than a fool’s paradise. He knows he has to accept harsh realities before he can transform them into peaceful and just traditions. Colonial powers, says Fanon, use language that presents natives as animals, beasts and uncivilized. They make fun of the traditions, dresses and religions of native people. They even portray them as evil. Their attitude “dehumanizes the native.”(Ref 1 p 42) Colonial powers pretend that they are trying to liberate or save the natives in the name of religion or democracy, offering them spiritual or political 239

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

salvation. They even expect the natives to thank them for their autocratic and patronizing attitudes. But such an attitude makes the natives angry and frustrated and over the years that anger is transformed into hatred, so that when they finally undertake to liberate themselves, they want revenge. Their pent up anger, which has been suppressed for years, often explodes into different kinds of violence. Propelled by that hatred, they also get rid of not only the language, culture and religion, but also many traditions and values imposed on them by the oppressor. “In the period of de-colonization, the colonized masses mock at these very values, insult them and vomit them up.”(Ref 1 p 43) Fanon states that natives in the process of revolt and revolution develop a “social consciousness”(Ref 1 p 49) and are willing to make personal sacrifices for communal gain. They are willing to sacrifice their distressing todays for peaceful tomorrows. They hope for a day when the settlers and natives, the oppressors and the oppressed, the rich and the poor, the haves and have nots, will be treated equally. They dream of fair and just societies so that their children and grandchildren can have better lives than their parents and grandparents. Fanon discusses in his book how natives start feeling guilty because they are blamed, persecuted and judged by the colonial powers. Such a guilt complex is very dangerous for the mental health of the natives. It undermines their self-respect and self worth and eventually they begin to dislike themselves and can grow to resent and hate each other. Such feelings give birth to self-derogatory com240

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

ments, rivalries between groups and violent reactions between different ethnic, racial and religious organizations. “The colonized man will first manifest his aggressiveness which has been deposited in his bones against his own people. This is the period when the niggers beat each other up…”(Ref 1 p 52) Fanon helps us understand the dynamics of such anger, resentment and hate which is turned inwards emotionally and socially. Finally when such hate is expressed towards the oppressor, the victim projects his negative feelings and acts out his unconscious wish to become the persecutor as he identifies with the aggressor. “The native is an oppressed person whose permanent dream is to become the persecutor.”(Ref 1 p 53) He discusses the reality that the relationship between the native and the settler is not personal. In most circumstances they do not interact with each other in the home, in the office or in the street as they live in segregated communities. But the natives are daily affected by the rules and laws made by the oppressor, laws that are unjust and inhumane. That is why the revolt of the native is systemic and “the settler-native relationship is a mass relationship.”(Ref 1 p 53) Over a period of time the natives begin to realize that they are traveling on the path of self-destruction. If they do not change their course of action they might be annihilated by “mass destruction” so they decide to destroy the oppressor rather than destroying themselves. Their leaders encourage them to believe that by destroying the oppressors they would taste independence and freedom and become masters of their own destiny. But to reach the other 241

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

side, they might have to cross a river of blood, knowing full well that some of them might never reach the peaceful shore. Gradually each native becomes involved in shaping and transforming his personal and social reality. “The native discovers reality and transforms it into a pattern of his customs, into the practice of violence and into his plan of freedom.”(Ref 1 p 58) Fanon had great insight not only into the psyche of working class and suffering natives but also into that of their middle class intellectuals. Those people have a philosophical dissonance between their words and actions. They might make fiery speeches or write revolutionary poems but when it comes to violent demonstrations they remain in the background and talk of peaceful reforms. That is why Fanon noted bitterly, “They are violent in their words and reformist in their attitudes.”(Ref 1 p 59) Such people have nice middle class jobs and are comfortable in their lifestyles. It is usually the underprivileged people who realize that they cannot go on suffering so they decide to join the violent uprising. The poor peasants and struggling workers realize that they would benefit the most from a revolution. “The starving peasant, outside the class system, is the first among the exploited to discover that only violence pays.”(Ref 1 p 61) He realizes that colonialism and de-colonization are both violent phenomena. “…colonization is not a thinking machine, nor a body endowed with reasoning faculties. It is violence in its natural state, and it will only yield when confronted with greater violence.”(Ref 1 p 61) 242

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

Once natives realize that most so-called peaceful talks and negotiations are futile, they decide that the only road to freedom is the road of armed struggle and violence. That is when they join a revolutionary movement and show willingness not only to die but also to kill; they are convinced that they would be reborn as free citizens only after they kill their oppressor. That is the stage where revolutionaries embrace violence on a massive scale, because their leaders have convinced them that freedom cannot be achieved without direct action and violence. That is the stage of great sacrifice. At this point the colonial and imperialistic powers usually feel nervous and threatened; so they ask intellectuals and religious leaders among the natives to preach sermons exhorting people to be patient, offer the other cheek and wait for their reward in the afterlife. But at that stage, the revolutionaries have crossed a line and they have reached a stage of no return. The stronger the revolutionaries become, the weaker the oppressors feel. When the sermons fail to produce the desired results, the oppressors jail and kill a couple of revolutionary leaders in the hope that it will scare their followers. When that does not work, the desperate oppressors mobilize the police and the military to threaten the masses, to deliver the message that opposition to the colonial regime would mean a civil war in which thousands of innocent civilians would be massacred. The revolutionaries know that there must be an escalation of violence initiated by the settlers. They also realize that this escalation of violence and 243

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

military/police oppression also reflects the desperation of the oppressors. They intuitively know it is the beginning of the end of colonization. Finally the armed struggle erupts in full force in the belief that “violence alone will free them.”(Ref 1 p 73) Still the oppressors try to brainwash the natives that they are so naïve and inexperienced that they would not be able to run their own country and it would fall apart. Colonial powers do not realize that those communities had a history of hundreds of years of their own traditions before they became colonies under their foreign masters. Fanon highlights that after the second world war, America started walking in the footsteps of European colonial powers, trying to convince the leaders and common people of Asia, Africa and Latin America that she is the symbol of liberty, freedom and independence without revealing her hidden plan to become the next colonial power for political and economic gain. America does not realize that those colonies have become fed up with being raped by foreign powers and now they are full of rage and hatred. They realize that America wants puppet dictators and the illusion of respect for human rights, rather than democratically elected leaders who would challenge and confront her. “The United States is not afraid today of stating officially that they are the defenders of the rights of all peoples to self-determination”(Ref 1 p 79) not realizing that American military and ambassadors are not welcome anywhere and if they force themselves on other countries they will be welcomed with fists and stones and bullets of 244

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

“murderous guerrillas”(Ref 1 p 79) rather than with smiles. America, like all other colonial powers, has to realize that people in other countries no longer welcome their manipulations in whatever guise—they want to live with freedom and dignity. Countries that are still weak, poor and vulnerable look up to the newly self sufficient and independent nations. “It is true to say that independence has brought moral compensation to colonized peoples, and has established their dignity.”(Ref 1 p 81) Many people living in colonial systems do not realize that they as masters have taught their slaves the lesson of violence—the oppressors have been role models for the oppressed. The settlers seem surprised when they see the natives become violent. Conveniently, they call the freedom fighters “terrorists” without realizing that “the existence of an armed struggle shows that the people have decided to trust the violent methods only… In fact, as always, the settler has shown him the way he could take if he is to become free.”(Ref 1 p 84) Fanon’s hypothesis is that the reaction is equal and opposite to the action. Violence in the de-colonization process is directly related to the intensity of violence in the colonial process. The oppressors reap what their forefathers had been sowing for generations because “the development of violence among the colonized people will be proportionate to the violence exercised by the threatened colonial regime.”(Ref 1 p 89) Fanon had the experience of the Algerian revolution in which he was an active participant, and where he had wit245

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

nessed the deaths of thousands of people in that struggle. He had closely observed the cycle of violence of which he wrote, “Terror, counter-terror, violence, counter-violence, that is what observers bitterly record when they describe the cycle of hate, which is so tenacious and so evident in Algeria.”(Ref 1 p 89) Accordingly to Fanon, the native reaches a violent state of consciousness where he believes that he can be reborn as a free human being only if he kills his oppressor. In his act of murder he finds the secret of rebirth. For some it might be a myth, but for Fanon it was a psychological reality. He stated, “For the native, life can only spring up again out of the rotting corpse of the settler.”(Ref 1 p 93) He believed that the violence of the native not only gives him a new life but also restores his self-respect. He believed that in the twentieth century, the oppressed, the colonized people all over the world, have realized that the tide has turned—colonial powers will no longer be tolerated. The twentieth century ushered in the era of revolt and revolution. People living in the colonies are bringing to the world’s attention that “The well-being and the progress of Europe have been built up with the sweat and the dead bodies of Negroes, Arabs, Indians and the yellow races. We have decided not to overlook this anymore.”(Ref 1 p 96) Fanon’s view was that if Europe and America did not respect people and governments of Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America, then the cycle of violence would continue until there is mutual respect between communities and countries and the exploitation and oppression comes to an end. 246

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

My observations of political changes in the last few decades compel me to think that the statements that Fanon made in early 1960s were not only insightful and profound but also prophetic. He seems to be an excellent political diagnostician. Philosophers and political activists might disagree with his conclusions and interpretations but they cannot ignore his keen observations and descriptions of the dynamics of the native-settler relationship. Fanon seems to be one the great minds who shared with us his understanding of the psyche of violent revolutions and revolutionaries. He dreamt of a world where the cycle of violence and hate would end and human beings would learn to live peacefully and justly. Fanon believed that it would happen only when colonial powers acknowledged what they have done to humanity over the decades, and then be willing to help in the rehabilitation. They must show respect for all human beings individually and nationally and not try to change them in the name of religion and democracy. The colonized world “expects from those who for centuries have kept it in slavery is that they will help it to rehabilitate mankind, and make man victorious everywhere, once and for all.”(Ref 1 p 106)

REFERENCE Ref. 1 Fanon, Frantz. The Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove Press, 1963

247

LEO TOLSTOY

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

— LEO TOLSTOY — AND THE PATH OF LOVE AND PEACE

When studying the history of the twentieth century and reviewing the biographies of peace activists, I find that many of them were influenced directly or indirectly by the writings and teachings of Leo Tolstoy. Some admire him as a novelist while others revere him as a philosopher. His extraordinary novel War and Peace is considered by many to be one of the greatest novels of all time. Tolstoy influenced a number of twentieth-century peace activists including Mohandas Gandhi. In the last few years of Tolstoy’s life there was a written exchange between Tolstoy and Gandhi. In those letters Gandhi shared with Tolstoy his political activities in South Africa and his struggles for the human rights of Indians. Tolstoy was very supportive, offering him suggestions and guidance. Gandhi was so impressed by Tolstoy’s generous support, that he named his ashram where he trained his disciples in South Africa, Tolstoy Farm. Since Gandhi inspired the Dalai Lama and Martin Luther King, Jr., two respectable Nobel Peace Prize winners, we can say that Tolstoy’s thoughts influenced either directly or indirectly many social and political peace movements of the twentieth century. Tolstoy, who was inspired to write novels and short 251

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

stories in his youth, focused on spiritual and philosophical writings in his old age. In the last few years of his life he shared his observations and insights in the form of essays, which are considered by many as gold mines, as they reflect the enormous breadth and depth of Tolstoy’s knowledge and experience. Those essays establish Tolstoy’s deep understanding of human psychology, sociology and history. In those writings he establishes himself as a wise old man, ready to pass on the wisdom of previous generations to future generations. When I read Tolstoy’s philosophical essays which were written in the last decade of his life and the first decade of the twentieth century, a time when Russia was preparing for a violent Communist revolution, I find them very insightful. In those essays Tolstoy shares that human beings individually and collectively have a choice between two paths. They can choose the path of hate and violence or the path of love and peace. Tolstoy realized that followers of each path have their own justifications and rationalizations. He was of the opinion that people who follow the path of violence knowingly or unknowingly, consciously or unconsciously perpetuated the cycle of violence. Thus Tolstoy encouraged people to resist following the path of violence and opt for the path of love, which he felt would ultimately lead to long-term peace. But to follow the path of love people need to develop spiritually and be willing to make sacrifices. Such development calls for inner change and many people in their personal and social lives are not able to use restraint and follow the road less 252

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

travelled. They are tempted to fight fire with fire, take revenge and in that way continue the painful cycle. Focusing on the psychology of people who follow the path of hate and violence, Tolstoy said that this could happen at different levels: personal and social, emotional and political, national and international. Describing the battle between the classes, between rich and poor, the oppressed and the oppressors in any community, he wrote, “The majority of the working people, deprived of land and consequently of the possibility of enjoying the fruits of their labor, hate the landowners and capitalists who hold them in servitude. The landowners and capitalists, knowing how the workers feel about them, fear and detest them and hold them in servitude with the help of organized government force.”(Ref 1 p 158) Tolstoy was aware that throughout history and especially in the nineteenth century in oppressive communities, where conditions grew worse, tensions increased and eventually there were outbursts of violence. Those outbursts led to bloodshed and death of many human beings. Tolstoy believed that the dynamics of anger, resentment and bitterness between different classes in any community could also be observed between the rich and poor nations. Since the rich capitalist, colonial and imperialistic nations had been exploiting the poor nations of Asia and Africa, there was mounting tension and hatred on both sides. Such hatred for other nations was also fueled by the philosophy of patriotism. To support the passion of patriotism and defend one’s borders and interests, nations had 253

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

been spending their wealth and resources on armies and weapons rather than helping the poor, needy, deprived and suffering people. Those soldiers and officers were prepared to kill other human beings whom they perceived as their enemies. Tolstoy stated, “…there is the same steady increase in the arming of nation against nation, and the expenditure of more of the servile worker’s labor on land, water, submarine and air forces, with the sole purpose of preparing for international wholesale slaughter.”(Ref 1 p 158) Tolstoy emphasized that the nineteenth-century tradition of colonialism had set a stage where the colonial powers were controlling a number of nations which were full of anger, resentment and hatred against their masters. Each one of those big and powerful nations was holding “…one or several smaller nations in its power against their will, compelling them to participate in the life of the larger state they hate: Austria, Prussia, England, Russia, France, with their subject nations: Poland, Ireland, India, Finland, Caucasus, Algeria etc. Thus, apart from the growing hatred between poor and rich and between the large nations, there is an ever-increasing hatred between the oppressed nations and their subjugators.”(Ref 1 p 159) Tolstoy believed that people who travel on the path of violence are convinced that if they kill the capitalists and destroy their oppressive systems by force, they will be able to establish just and peaceful societies. Tolstoy thought that this was an illusion. He believed that a system conceived by force and violence would give birth to more violence, and the cycle would continue from one generation to another, 254

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

murdering more and more innocent men, women and children. “Violence produces something only resembling justice, but it distances people from the possibility of living justly, without violence.”(Ref 1 p 161) In the first decade of the twentieth century in Russia, Tolstoy witnessed with his own eyes the escalating violence between the Tsar and the Communists, between the government and the revolutionaries, and noted his observations: “…for the last year or two they [government officers and soldiers] have been shooting and hanging people ceaselessly; thousands have been strangled and shot. There are also thousands who have been killed and blown apart by revolutionary bombs….”(Ref 1 p 162) In Tolstoy’s view, the government was using violence to control people while the revolutionaries were “employing violence as a means of uniting people.”(Ref 1 p 162) He felt that only genuine love could unite people, that violence might temporarily unite them because of a common enemy but in the long run it divides them. Tolstoy also felt that people whether belonging to the oppressed or oppressor groups, the rich or the poor, government or revolutionary organizations, who use violence to bring about social and political change know in the depths of their hearts that they cannot achieve lasting peace by embracing violence. They become an integral part of a contradiction that they have a hard time stepping away from. Their argument that the end justifies the means does not pass the test of time. “Both parties, although influenced by their position, try through every kind of argument to 255

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

convince themselves that violence is useful and necessary, while knowing in the depth of their hearts that their acts of cruelty only achieve a semblance of what they want—and that only a temporary one which, in reality, distances them from their aims rather than drawing them closer.”(Ref 1 p 164) He was well aware that people who embrace violence as a means to an end do not realize that there are no short cuts to peace; to follow the path of love, human beings need the attitude of marathon runners and must be willing to make sacrifices. He was cognizant of the cruel reality that the political path towards peace is littered with violence and bloodshed, and he proposed that people individually and collectively, need to seriously consider the other option, the spiritual path towards peace. The spiritual path was the path of love that has been suggested by all the saints, prophets and spiritual leaders throughout history. It was the essence of all religious traditions. “The fact love is a necessary and happy aspect of human life was recognized by all the ancient religious beliefs. In all the teachings of the Egyptian sages, the Brahmins, the Stoics, the Buddhists, Taoists and others, amicability, pity, mercy, charity and love in general are considered the chief values.”(Ref 1 p 172) All religions believed that human beings alongside their violent dark side also have a peaceful bright side. It is in that sacred and divine side where God lives and expresses himself as love. Tolstoy in later years tried to get in touch with that side of his personality and encouraged others to do the same. He wrote, “The teaching amounts to saying that what we call ‘our self’ or 256

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

our life, is really the divine principle, limited in us by our body, and manifesting itself as love, and that therefore the true life of each man, divine and free, expresses itself as love.”(Ref 1 p 173) Being a spiritual, peaceful and loving person himself, Tolstoy was disappointed in human beings in general and Christians in particular, who embraced violence as a means to bring about social change. He reminded his Christian readers that if they studied the philosophy of Christ and Christian history of the first four centuries, they would discover that practising Christians in their personal and social lives followed the spiritual path of love. Genuine Christians in their personal lives chose the path of forgiveness to break the cycle of violence rather than giving in to the temptation of revenge. They knew very well that “violence performed against you can never justify violence on your part.”(Ref 1 p 174) The same Christians who were peaceful in their personal lives also refused to join any army, nor did they give their blessing to their leaders to go to war and kill other human beings. They knew that Christ’s admonishment to love your neighbor included neighboring communities and nations who deserved to be loved as brothers and sisters rather than hated as enemies. Tolstoy shared many examples of dedicated Christians who refused to join the army and were either killed or imprisoned for years. Those peace lovers preferred to sacrifice their lives rather than taking that of another human being. Tolstoy believed that Christian morality never approved of war. He wrote, “In the rules of the third 257

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

century Egyptian Church…it was absolutely forbidden for any Christian to enter military service…”(Ref 1 p 189) He shared examples of many dedicated and faithful Christians who sacrificed their lives for their values. “Marcellus was a soldier in the Legion of Troy. Believing in the teaching of Christ and the fact that warfare is an anti-Christian activity, he took off his military decorations in front of the whole legion, threw them on the ground and explained that having become a Christian he could no longer serve. He was imprisoned, but while in prison he still said, ‘A Christian cannot bear arms.’ He was executed. After Marcellus, Cessan, who belonged to the same regiment, refused to serve. He too was executed.”(Ref 1 p 189) Tolstoy highlighted that the belief that “war is incompatible with Christianity”(Ref 1 p 190) was so strong that Christians refused to go to war even if ordered by a Christian ruler, because in a conflict between Christ and the ruthless ruler, Christians followed the peaceful teachings of Christ. They held the firm conviction that “Christians are not allowed to shed blood, even in a just war, or at the order of Christian rulers.”(Ref 1 p 190) Tolstoy believed that after the fourth century Christians in their personal, social, national and international lives stopped following the teachings of Christ and embraced violence and war. Subsequently, they launched the Crusades, killing thousands of human beings of other beliefs and faiths. Christ offered a message of love not hate, compassion not revenge, and of peace not violence, and Tolstoy believed 258

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

that in the last fifteen centuries, as people have witnessed the horrors of war, they have realized the wisdom of Christian teachings. Thus, in the twentieth century the path of peace has been chosen by not only by caring Christians but also by compassionate people from other spiritual and humanist traditions, believers and nonbelievers alike. All these people, individually and collectively, refused to follow the path of hate and violence as they knew it would lead to collective suicide and murder, and instead chose the path of love and peace which they believed would lead to the evolution of the human species. Tolstoy belonged to that group of peace lovers; he believed that only love could unite people and bring lasting peace on earth. His last message before he left this world was an invitation to others to join the group. He wrote, “And if you are unhappy…and I know you are unhappy— remember that what has been suggested here was not invented by me, but is the fruit of the spiritual works of all the best and loftiest minds and hearts of mankind, and is the only means of deliverance from your unhappiness, providing the greatest well-being man can attain in this life. This is what I wanted to say to my fellow men before I die.”(Ref 1 p 221) Reading the teachings of Tolstoy, it was easy for me to understand why many feel that Tolstoy was one of the greatest minds of the twentieth century. Over the years, people around the world have sought inspiration in his guidance, his knowledge and his enormous wisdom. Still 259

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

there are those who believe that he was a philosopher and not a political activist, a writer rather than a fighter, a novelist and not a revolutionary. Some have even suggested that his philosophy was nothing more than a utopia that sounds good on paper but not on the streets, impressive in books but not on the battlefield. Whatever the opinion, there is no doubt that his writings have influenced millions of people of the twentieth century and his philosophy has inspired great leaders like Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., two well-respected prophets of peace.

REFERENCE Ref. 1 Tolstoy, Leo. A Confession and other Religious Writings. Translated by Jane Kentish. England: Penguin Classics, 1987

260

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

P A R T

T H R E E

—•—

IN SEARCH OF PEACE

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

— IN SEARCH OF PEACE — AN INTERVIEW

Anne: I like the title of your book Prophets of Violence— Prophets of Peace. It is intriguing and provocative. What inspired you to write this book? Sohail: Being a poet and a psychotherapist I have developed a keen interest in the personalities and lifestyles of creative people. I strongly believe that creative people whether scientists or artists, poets or playwrights, musicians or painters, philosophers or mystics, reformers or revolutionaries have been the torch bearers of humanity guiding the masses on their path of evolution. Nature offers them a special gift but that gift is presented to them as raw material. Depending upon their family, social, religious, political and cultural circumstances that raw material takes a special form and shape. In some cases that gift is viewed by these creative people as a blessing, and by others, as a curse. It can bring much happiness or conversely, much pain and suffering. Such pain and suffering affects not only those individuals but also their dear ones, their friends, colleagues, relatives and neighbors. The broader the 263

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

circle of their creative influence, the more people they affect by their philosophies and lives. In some cases they change the future of the whole community, country or century. This book is the thematic continuation of my previous books. In the last twenty years I have interviewed and reviewed biographies of many creative people and published their life stories. In those books I discussed the mysteries of the creative process. My first book was Literary Encounters in which I interviewed Eastern writers living in the West and wrote a detailed introduction titled Creativity…An Attempt to Understand in which I reviewed different theories about the creative process and personality. My second book was People Who Travel on the Trails in which I published interviews of famous writers of Pakistan and India, in which they discussed the role of creative people in their communities and the rights and responsibilities of writers. In my third book From Islam to Secular Humanism … A Philosophical Journey, I reviewed the life stories of saints and mystics and presented a profile of their personalities. I also highlighted the similarities in the spiritual values and philosophies of William Blake, Kabir Das, Bullay Shah, Rumi, Walt Whitman and other mystic poets of the world. In my fourth book The Myth of the Chosen One I reviewed the biographies of serial killers and mass murderers and presented a profile of psychopaths. 264

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

After reviewing all those groups of creative people I wanted to pursue the biographies of reformers and revolutionaries. I felt that those people represented the best and the worst of the human species. Their creativity had a broader, wider and deeper spectrum as it involved political movements. They were the creators of reforms and revolutions. Since they wanted to create a social change, they were dependent on their friends as well as their enemies. On one hand they had to prepare their disciples to make sacrifices and on the other hand engage their enemies in the process of change. It took them years, sometimes decades, to create reform and revolution. So in short it was my fascination with the lives of creative people that led to creating this book about the personalities, political strategies and philosophies of reformers and revolutionaries of the twentieth century. Anne: What do you think was the nature of creativity in these extraordinary men that changed the history of the twentieth century? Sohail: Nature had offered these great men multiple gifts but usually one aspect of their creativity predominated. Some of them were primarily poets, writers and philosophers, creators of poems, philosophies and ideologies which inspired millions of people. For example Mohammad Iqbal was well-respected as a poet and a philosopher. Rabindranath Tagore was not only a poet, he was also a musician, playwright and an educator. 265

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

Leo Tolstoy was a novelist as well as a philosopher. Alongside presenting their original and novel ideas they also made significant contributions to age-old philosophies and tried to bring them into synch with the modern world. For example, Iqbal’s collection of lectures, Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam is, an attempt to make Islamic ideology relevant to the modern world. On the other hand Tolstoy in his philosophical essays tried to make the peaceful teachings of Christianity relevant to the violent atmosphere of the twentieth century. Some of them were primarily spiritual leaders. For example the Dalai Lama is well respected all over the world as a symbol of Buddhist philosophy. His message of peace and compassion won him the Nobel Peace Prize. There are others, primarily political activists, whose focus was primarily to change the political system. Some of them like Ho Chi Minh and Che Guevara became guerrilla warriors engaged in the overthrow of colonial governments. There were some who after the triumph of the revolution became heads of state. Some became an integral part of the new government. Mohammad Ali Jinnah chose to be the head of the new Muslim state Pakistan and Mandela was elected to represent the people of South Africa, while Che Guevara became a minister in the government of Fidel Castro in Cuba. In this way these great men either influenced the 266

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

thinking of their communities as poets and philosophers, tried to bring about inner change as spiritual leaders or changed the social system by becoming political activists and then changed the laws and constitutions as office bearers of the new government. All those steps were expressions of their creative genius. It is my impression that some of those creative men were more successful than others. I believe that a revolution and a reform like any creative product is never perfect. For me the reforms and revolutions had a duality. On one hand those men and their social movements existed in a particular historical and geographical setting; but on the other hand each movement became a symbol and each leader transformed into a legend and became a source of inspiration for many other communities and countries experiencing similar struggles. Gradually the stories of social change whether created by Mohandas Gandhi in India or Martin Luther King, Jr. in America are becoming part of the folklore of the twentieth century. Anne: After doing this lengthy research and reading thousands of pages, what is the most profound insight that you acquired into human nature and the human condition? Sohail: After reading the biographies of these creative people I developed a profound awareness of the duality of human nature. I realized that all of us as human beings have a dark as well a bright side to our 267

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

personality and at each stage of our lives we find ourselves at a crossroads where we have to make a choice. We can choose the path either of peace or of violence. I also realized that like each human being, all of humanity is also at crossroads. We as a human species also have to make a choice. I am afraid that if we do not chose the path of peace and follow the road of violence we might commit collective suicide or murder before the end of this century. This research has shown me clearly that reformers and revolutionaries have well developed dark as well as bright sides to their personalities. Anne: Do you see any relationship between creativity and destructiveness? Sohail: Yes, I do. I believe creative people and movements go through three stages as a part of the creative process. In the first stage creative people follow the traditions they grow up in. In the second stage they become disillusioned by old traditions, as they find them oppressive and unjust. Getting rid of old unjust traditions is a destructive process. In the third stage they create new products, new traditions, new philosophies and new systems. Genuine and fortunate artists, philosophers and revolutionaries successfully complete all the stages of that creative process. In such cases destruction is followed by reconstruction. They have to destroy a hut to build a wonderful house. Unfortunately there are times when the creative 268

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

process and movement is aborted and there is lot of pain and suffering and bloodshed and it never reaches full term. Artists and revolutionaries are like mothers. They have to nurture their baby creations, reforms and revolutions, with their sweat and blood. The bigger the dream of a revolutionary, the greater the danger of death and destruction. Anne: I suppose the perception of what is creative and what is destructive depends on one’s point of view. And I suspect that desperation blurs the lines between the two. Why have you dedicated the book to your friends, your family of the heart? Sohail: When I started writing this book I was already a member of an informal group of creative friends who take a keen interesting in my readings and writings. We call the group the family of the heart. The small nuclear family meets every week and the extended family meets every month for intellectually stimulating discussions. Whenever I wrote a chapter I shared it with them and they gave me their honest and sincere feedback and made valuable suggestions. Their feedback was a constant source of inspiration from the beginning to the end of the project. I feel so indebted to my friends that I decided to dedicate this book to them, as they were co-travelers in my creative journey. I feel fortunate to have such friends who belong to different cultures and religions but still genuinely care for each other. I hope my book creates an atmosphere that 269

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

stimulates a genuine dialogue in different ethnic, religious and cultural communities. Some of my friends are already translating the book in Urdu for those readers in India and Pakistan who cannot read English. • • GANDHI Anne: What made you start your project with Gandhi? Sohail: Gandhi had fascinated me all my life. My father and uncle used to talk about him as they had a lot of respect and reverence for him. My Uncle Arif Abdul Mateen who was a well-respected Urdu and Punjabi poet wrote a wonderful poem on his death and even called him shaheed, a martyr, because Gandhi was assassinated. As a young man I read Gandhi’s autobiography and it had intrigued me—I was struck by his honesty but I was also confused by many aspects of his life, especially his views on the relationship between spirituality and sexuality. I wanted to study his life story once again. Anne: What impressed you the most about Gandhi’s life? Sohail: I believe he was a great politician and a statesman. He knew how to mobilize the masses. His dedication and commitment to his cause and the struggle for independence was impressive. He also knew how to use public opinion. He was a master in making history—his salt march is just one example of that extraordinary phenomenon. I was impressed by his honesty. He has written 270

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

things in his autobiography that most people would not have the courage to share. I have a lot of respect for his confessions. Gandhi had developed a certain charm and charisma in his personality. He won the hearts of great people like Jawaharlal Nehru and Abul Kalam Azad in India and Martin Luther King, Jr. and Erik Erikson in America. He transformed himself into one of the strongest symbols of peace and non-violence of the twentieth century, a great accomplishment. Anne: What were some of the surprises for you regarding his life? Sohail: Being a psychotherapist I was intrigued with Gandhi’s conflicts concerning sex, violence and spirituality, conflicts he struggled with all his life but could not successfully resolve. An Indian psychoanalyst, Sudhir Kakar, wrote a wonderful book, Intimate Relations, in which there is a chapter entitled “Gandhi and Women” which is full of insights into Gandhi’s life and relationships. It is quite a scholarly essay. In that chapter Kakar talks about sex becoming an obsession with the adolescent Mohandas. Gandhi’s obsession with sex had an unpleasant expression in his marriage—he became controlling, jealous and violent. Kakar wrote of the couple that they had violent quarrels which they dissolved at night making love but which re-emerged the next day. There were times Gandhi lost control and became physically violent. 271

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

He went so far as to break Kasturbai’s bangles. He was very honest about his angry temperament, admitting that he took out his anger on her because of his own weakness. Gandhi finally realized that since he could not resolve the emotional conflict between his sexual and aggressive instincts, he had to renounce both. It was interesting for me to learn that the year that he adopted the philosophy of non-violence was the same year that he chose the lifestyle of celibacy. I found it tragic that his wife Kasturbai was never consulted…one wonders how Kasturbai felt, what choices she had, and why she tolerated such behavior. At that time Gandhi was quite influenced by Leo Tolstoy’s philosophy and lifestyle. He wrote letters to the elderly Tolstoy outlining his political achievements in South Africa and asking for his guidance. Gandhi learned that Tolstoy had adopted a life of peace and celibacy and that moreover, that life of celibacy was meant not only for single people but also for married men and women. Gandhi was so influenced by Tolstoy that he named his commune Tolstoy Farm and adopted his ideals. I found it amazing that Gandhi felt that by controlling his sexual activities he and his disciples could increase their spiritual powers and then use those spiritual powers to solve political problems. Gandhi’s notion of using spiritual powers for politics was an interesting revelation for me. Kakar highlights Gandhi’s philosophy that the increase in his capacity to 272

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

work in the political arena was due to the psychic power achieved through celibacy. Gandhi was so influenced by Tolstoy’s Christian philosophy that he wanted to become what he called “God’s eunuch.” Gandhi had strange ideas about human physiology. He believed that spiritually enlightened men would not have wet dreams. Because he could not control his own wet dreams, a natural phenomenon for men, he felt he was not successful in his spiritual quest. Gandhi had similar unscientific views about women’s physiology—he believed spiritually enlightened women did not have periods. Gandhi’s views about sexuality and spirituality and their role in politics took a surrealistic turn in the last two years of his life, which Kakar called another dark period. While Hindus and Muslims of India were killing each other in the streets, Gandhi tried another sexual and spiritual experiment. He slept with young women but did not have sex, hoping to control his sexuality by remaining celibate. He believed that if he could transform his sexual energy into spiritual energy, then he could use that spiritual energy to transform India’s political violence into peace. Karkar says Gandhi believed his celibacy was a Hindu sacrifice to the gods to attain a restoration of personal psychic potency which would help him to regain control over political events and men. In the beginning I wanted to ignore Gandhi’s sexual life as I thought I should not comment on his 273

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

personal life but I could not ignore it when I realized that his views on sexuality were intimately connected with his political philosophy. I was quite shocked to read that he not only practised those values himself but also expected the same practices from his followers, as he believed that those values were essential for a nonviolent political movement and a peaceful life. The account of Gandhi’s relationship with his wife and family was quite perturbing to read. I came to the tragic conclusion that he was not as successful a husband or father as he was a political leader. I believe he was a better bapu [father] to all of India than to his own family. And that was one sad realization for me, reading the life stories of many reformers and revolutionaries, that they were more dedicated and committed to the whole community and country than to their own families When I talk to Westerners I find it amusing that their view of Gandhi is based on the movie Gandhi, which for me is the Hollywood version of his life. In that movie Ben Kingsley performed so well that for the modern world he represents Gandhi. That movie has made Gandhi a popular legend of the twentieth century. He has become part of the folklore. But we all know that when a personality transforms into a myth it is very difficult for common people to separate fiction from fact and differentiate between fantasy and reality. In spite of all that I still have to admire Gandhi as I believe that he genuinely struggled all his life to deal 274

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

with sexual instincts at a personal level and aggressive instincts at a political level in a non-violent way. He was successful gaining freedom for India in his political life but I am not sure how successful he was in finding either inner or social peace, the kind of peace that is more than simply absence of war and conflict. I think Gandhi’s autobiography, like Sigmund Freud’s Interpretation of Dreams, is one of the great masterpieces of the twentieth century, for in it, Gandhi attempts to understand the dynamics of human sexual and aggressive instincts in our personal and social lives. They both tried to develop some insights into the human psyche. I am not sure to what degree their results will pass the test of time but there is no doubt in my mind that such books are a great service to humanity. They invite us to peer into those dark corners of human nature with which most of us are uncomfortable. Anne: I was surprised initially that you were discussing Gandhi’s sexual life in such detail, as this book focuses on the dual paths of peace and violence in revolutionaries and revolutions; but I realized that Gandhi’s struggle to master his own nature and his rigidity towards himself were acted out in his relationship with other people and the political system. • • PARTITION OF INDIA Anne: 1947 was a happy as well as a tragic year for India. During the partition of India more than two million 275

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

people were displaced and became homeless, and half a million innocent men, women and children were killed. Do you think such a tragedy could have been prevented? Sohail: Yes, I think so. Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and other religious groups had been living together in India for centuries. I do not understand why they had to be separated. And even if they wanted to separate they could have done it peacefully. I believe if Lord Mountbatten had been more patient and had used his political wisdom, he might have avoided a lot of bloodshed. His personal ambitions took over and he decided everything in a great hurry. The role of the British government at the time of partition was not impressive. At the end of the Second World War they were so disillusioned with world politics that they did not pay attention to details. Alongside the British government and Mountbatten, I hold the Muslim League and Congress responsible. Jinnah and Gandhi, who had endless dialogues over the years, could not come up with a respectable and peaceful agreement. Their huge egos clashed and millions of innocent people got caught in that crossfire. Even when Gandhi made a last attempt to gain independence for India as one nation, his own disciples Nehru and Patel went against him and undermined his plan. Let me share with you a personal story. When my uncle Arif Abdul Mateen came for a visit to Toronto before he died, he met an older Indian writer, Aqeela 276

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

Shaheen, in a meeting. She asked him, “Are you the same Arif who had a fatwa [decree] against him in 1948? There were posters all over the streets in Lahore calling for your death.” He told her “yes” and I was shocked to hear that. When we came home that evening, I asked my uncle the details. He said that he had written a poem criticizing the Muslim League and Congress for failing to prevent bloodshed. The religious maulanas had declared in their Friday sermons that Arif Abdul Mateen should be killed because he had written a poem against Pakistan and Islam, which was not true. That night a group of passionate young men got hold of my uncle and were going to kill him. Luckily he was able to show them the poem, which he happened to have with him. After reading it, they realized that they had been misguided by the maulanas and apologized. I feel that my writing this book was an attempt to pursue the same process that my uncle had started fifty years ago. We need to look at history once again and rather than blaming others for all our social and political misfortunes, we need to learn to take responsibility for our actions individually and collectively. But most of all I feel every Muslim, Sikh and Hindu who killed an innocent brother, raped a sister or murdered a child has to take responsibility for their crimes. I think that in the creation of Pakistan two strong passions, religion and nationalism, embraced each other and I feel that it was a dangerous combination. It is amazing that many Islamic leaders refused to 277

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

support the creation of Pakistan as they believed that Islam did not support the Western concept of nationalism. They did not associate the philosophy of Islam with geographical boundaries. • • TAGORE Anne: How do you think Tagore was different from Gandhi? Sohail: Tagore believed in evolution through education while Gandhi believed in political revolution. Both had a spiritual dimension to their personalities but Gandhi’s spirituality was tainted by his politics. He could not keep it pure. Tagore had great insights into the human psyche and personality because he was a poet and an artist. He was aware that Gandhi’s philosophy was not able to bring people together on the basis of love, but rather through anger, resentment and hatred towards the British and Western imperialism. Under Gandhi’s leadership various religious groups came together and joined hands because they had a common enemy. Tagore was afraid that such unity would disintegrate when the enemy departed, that the anger and hatred for the enemy would focus on different ethnic and religious groups and that Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims would kill each other. Tagore had warned Gandhi in the 1920s of the possibility of such a massacre but Gandhi brushed aside his warning. Gandhi was either naïve in that way or too idealistic. Gandhi resented Western politics as well as 278

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

Western culture. Tagore had a soft corner for Western culture even as he opposed Western imperialism. He hoped to build bridges between different cultural traditions nationally as well as internationally. He believed that in the modern world, East and West could respect each other and learn from each other. Tagore was primarily a poet, a philosopher and a cultural ambassador rather than a political activist. He dreamt of creating schools, colleges and universities where Indian people would study modern knowledge and learn to cherish each other’s cultural and religious differences. Anne: What were you most inspired by when you read Tagore’s biography? Sohail: I loved his love for teaching and learning. I was impressed by his philosophy that to create peaceful communities we need to learn to respect members of other ethnic and religious communities and cherish our differences. He wanted children from different cultural backgrounds to study together and learn to live and grow with each other. He wanted them to learn to resolve conflicts in school, as he saw educational institutions as training grounds for political institutions. He had a long-term plan for India that extended to future generations. He knew revolution could be brought about in one generation, but for evolution we need hard work of many generations. I was also impressed by his diversity and versatility 279

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

as an artist. He was a wonderful poet, musician, playwright and philosopher. It is unfortunate that Westerners know him only through his mystic poetry, Gitnajali, for which he received the Nobel Prize for Literature; he was far more than that—he was a renaissance man in the true sense of the word. • • IQBAL Anne: How do you compare Gandhi, Mohammad Iqbal and Abul Kalam Azad, the three great men of India? Sohail: Iqbal had as many similarities as differences with Gandhi. They were both anti-Western. They did not want Indians to follow the footsteps of Western civilization. That was their similarity. The difference was that Gandhi’s identity remained Indian all his life while Iqbal’s identity transformed from that of Indian to Muslim. His religious identity overtook his ethnic identity and he began to dream of a separate homeland for Muslims. Iqbal’s Muslim identity got married to a piece of land. I found it interesting that Azad also had a strong identity as an Indian Muslim but he was different than Iqbal. In Azad’s mind mosque and state were separate, as he was a secular person. He believed that Muslims could practise their religion in their personal lives but still be an integral part of a multicultural and multi-religious state where all citizens would be equally respected. He dreamt of a secular India where all ethnic and religious minorities would be respected and enjoy equal rights. Azad believed that creating a separate state for 280

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

Muslims might undermine the political strength of the Muslims of India. He was also afraid that if Muslims created a separate state on the basis of religion, then they might fight in the future on the basis of different sects inside the religion. Azad believed that religion was a poor basis for creating a new country. It reflected tribal thinking. It is interesting that although he did not favor the creation of Pakistan, once it was born and he had become India’s Minister of Education, he encouraged good relations between India and Pakistan. He wanted the two countries to live as friendly neighbors rather than bitter enemies. Anne: What do you like most about Iqbal? Sohail: I think he is a wonderful poet. I believe Mohammad Iqbal and Faiz Ahmed Faiz broadened the literary horizons of Urdu poetry by including many social and political themes that were not part of the classical tradition of Urdu poetry. I am also impressed by Iqbal’s book, Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, a collection of his lectures. In those lectures Iqbal encourages Muslims to read the Quran with new eyes. He gives new interpretations to age-old verses. He suggests that the story of Adam and Eve is the story of man and woman on earth rather than a mythological couple in paradise. He also suggests that heaven and hell are states, not places. Iqbal belongs to that group of scholars who encourage people to adopt a symbolic and metaphorical 281

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

interpretation of scriptures rather than reading their verses in a literal way. Unfortunately whenever Iqbal wanted to discuss a modern interpretation of the Quran, he was attacked by fundamentalists who declared his writings blasphemous. That was one reason he expressed his views in poetry, and when he wrote prose it was in English. When it was suggested that his lectures be translated into Urdu, he said that his nation was not ready to digest his philosophy. • • JINNAH Anne: What are your views on Mohammad Ali Jinnah? How do you think a non-religious leader like Jinnah was able to create a religious state? Sohail: I am very impressed by him as a lawyer but as a political figure he was the epitome of contradictions. I find it hilarious that a religious scholar like Azad wanted Muslims to remain as part of India while a nonreligious person like Jinnah who did not practise Islam, did not read the Quran, did not speak Urdu and lived a purely Western lifestyle wearing suits and ties, drinking alcohol and eating pork, wanted a separate country for Muslims. It sounds like a political fantasy rather than a reality. In the beginning when he was a member of Congress, he wanted to create harmony between Muslims and Hindus but as time passed and his personality conflicts with Gandhi escalated, he decided that he could create a separate homeland for Muslims. 282

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

Iqbal gave him a lot of encouragement and moral support. He thought Jinnah could win the case of the Muslim community and he did, in the court of the British. I thought it was ironic that after he won the case for Muslims he declared that in Pakistan all Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and other religious minorities would be equal and Pakistan would be a secular state. To me if he wanted Pakistan to be a secular state then what was the need of sacrificing the lives of thousands of innocent men, women and children? Why couldn’t there be a secular India, because even in a democratic secular India Muslims would have established their governments in the provinces where they were in the majority. For me Jinnah always seemed like a religious and political contradiction. I was really upset when I read that when he realized that he was not going to win his case through peaceful means he endorsed violence by declaring a Direct Action Day. I think that was the beginning of a political nightmare. It gave a blessing to hatred and animosity between Muslims and Hindus and after more than fifty years we are still experiencing the political hangover of that religious intoxication. I believe it was tragic. Most Muslims and Pakistanis that I have met did not realize that Jinnah was for most of his life a symbol of Muslim-Hindu unity for the rest of the world. It was only for the last eight years before he died that he became obsessed with a separate homeland for Muslims. I found it interesting also that in his will he 283

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

left most of his assets to Indian organizations rather than Pakistani institutions and his only daughter did not move to Pakistan. Anne: In your opinion who was more secular, Gandhi or Jinnah? Sohail: I think the term secular can be interpreted in more than one way. It can reflect freedom of religion but it can also mean freedom from religion. Gandhi was secular as he respected all faiths and dreamt of India as a multicultural, multi-lingual and multi-faith society. But in his personal life he was a practising Hindu. He was a follower of a conservative Jain religion. His practices of avoiding meat, sex and violence were partly inspired by Jain tradition. Jinnah on the other hand was secular because he did not practise any religious faith in his personal life. Jinnah all his life wanted to keep religion and politics apart. He was upset when he saw Gandhi bringing religion into politics. He expressed his concerns openly when Gandhi started supporting Muslims in the Khilafat Movement of Turkey. Gandhi wanted to prove that although he was a Hindu he was still supportive of Indian Muslims. By taking that step he won the hearts of millions of Muslims and was transformed into a national hero rather than the leader of only the Hindus. Jinnah was quite perturbed by that move. He felt that Gandhi was not only opportunistic but also mixing religion and politics, which he thought was 284

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

dangerous for Indian politics in the long run. His response was the historic statement, “Mr. Gandhi is spiritualizing Indian nationalist politics.” I find it ironic that Gandhi, while opposing British imperialism and the monarchy in India, was supporting the Muslim monarchy in Turkey. I also find it tragic that Jinnah who fought all his life to keep religion and politics apart became the founder of a Muslim state. • • ATATURK Anne: Kamal Ataturk is quite a controversial figure. What do you think about his struggles to liberate Turkey? Why does Pervaiz Musharraf of Pakistan consider him his role model? Sohail: I think it is because Ataturk believed in a secular state. He was a nationalist. He wanted Turks to be proud of their culture and heritage. He was as much against Western imperialism as he was against Arab domination. He was the only leader of a Muslim country who identified Islam as a colonial power. While reading Ataturk’s biography I was reminded of Nigerian writer Wole Soyinka who highlights in his writings how African culture was colonized by Christianity as well as Islam and how it undermined African pride and dignity. Ataturk wanted to separate religion from politics and to keep the mosque separate from the parliament. But he faced strong opposition from religious 285

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

fundamentalists. For me it is interesting that he was successful in restoring Turkish pride but he was not successful in eliminating Arab and Islamic influence. He did not realize that the psychological conditioning of religion was very deep-rooted and that any permanent social change would require a long-term infusion of science and rational thinking, rather than a shortterm political revolution. But he was successful in achieving some sense of equality between men and women. He had realized that Islam, like many other patriarchal religions, caused women a lot of suffering because they were not accorded equal human rights with men. Ataturk realized that cultures pre-exist religions so they adopt the traditions of that culture. Since Arab culture is patriarchal, all monotheistic religions of the Arab world have those prejudices, so that men have more rights and privileges than women. I thought it was unfortunate that in spite of the secular and nationalistic nature of his philosophy, Ataturk had to use violence to implement it. He did not realize that violence breeds more violence. Ataturk did not understand that legal and political changes are lasting only if they are complemented by changes in people’s attitudes, and that those changes can be brought about only through education. I think Martin Luther King, Jr. was more aware of the complex relationship between politics and education than Ataturk. King said that through education we try to change attitudes and through legislation and court orders we 286

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

seek to regulate behavior. Through education we seek to change internal feelings like prejudice, hate and so on, and through legislation and court orders we hope to control the external effects of those feelings. He said that one method isn’t a substitute for the other, but a necessary supplement. Although Ataturk tried to educate his nation, it seems that he was more successful in changing legislation than people’s attitudes. We see that in Russia as well. The Communist revolution could not permanently replace religious traditions with a secular and atheistic philosophy. Changing people’s hearts, attitudes and personalities is more difficult than changing laws. Anne: He reminds me of Peter the Great, who through his autocratic and sweeping decrees westernized Russian daily life—he focused on the same symbols: alphabet, religious observances and dress, to look European, if not feel it. But in that case, despite initial resistance, the attitudes did somewhat follow the symbols, in that Russia became more knowable to the rest of Europe and there was more intermingling of the cultures. • • ARMED STRUGGLE Anne: Peace activists all over the world do not support armed struggle ideologically or politically. What are your views on armed struggle? Sohail: I have mixed feelings about armed struggle. Being a peace-loving person I believe in a respectful and peaceful resolution of conflicts at a personal, social, 287

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

political, national and international level. But I am also aware that there were times in history when people had tried all peaceful means without success and the only road left for them was armed struggle. I differentiate between political groups who adopt armed struggle as the last option to liberate themselves, and those who embrace it as the first choice. These people are motivated more by the love of freedom for their oppressed countrymen than by hate for their enemies. Such violence is controlled and minimum. They try their best to ensure that no human life is lost. They are also aware that armed struggle is the last step towards a peaceful political solution. They are always willing to negotiate with their oppressive, imperial and colonial masters. One such example was Nelson Mandela. He was part of an armed struggle but after being in jail for quarter of a century he was able to negotiate not only with his enemy de Klerk but also with his rival, Butulezi, chief of the Zulu tribe. He was finally able to witness a democratic election in his country. Maybe that is why in spite of his violent past the world recognized his sincere, genuine and peaceful intentions and awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize. I believe Mandela is different from many other leaders of armed struggles who after entering the cycle of violence could not get out of it—the violence continued even after they gained power. After a successful revolution, they killed and massacred thousands of innocent men, women and children. For me armed struggle is like surgery. Sometimes 288

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

surgery might be necessary to save the life of a patient or a nation but the surgeon needs to be competent and compassionate, otherwise the whole nation might bleed to death. The million-dollar question is: How does anyone know which surgeon, which leader of an armed struggle, is competent and compassionate? People all over the world have seen so many bloody operations throughout history that they have learnt to be cautious and not trust any leader who advocates armed struggle. People are nervous that he might lose control and it might cost the nation thousands of innocent lives. I was quite touched when I read that Ho Chi Minh was perturbed when he saw his comrades ruthlessly killing the landlords. He believed the transition could take place peacefully. In one public meeting he literally cried, as he felt responsible for the cruelties of his companions. I don’t think many revolutionaries were as sensitive to the lives of innocent people and as compassionate to their enemies as Ho Chi Minh. That is why I called him a revolutionary saint. Most of them, like Che Guevara, were ruthless with their enemies. • • MANDELA Anne: How do you differentiate between terrorists and freedom fighters in an armed struggle? Sohail: It is primarily a matter of perception. It is unfortunate that history is written by the conquerors and colonial powers. All people that colonial powers disapprove of or disagree with are labeled as terrorists. 289

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

Sometimes the same group is labeled differently at different times in history. One such example is the Afghani people. When they were fighting against Russia and were supported by America they were known as freedom fighters and called Mujahedeen. But when the same people turned against America they became “terrorists” and are known as Taliban and perceived to be members of Al-Qaeda. Anne: You seemed to be quite touched emotionally by Mandela’s autobiography. What was the reason? Sohail: There were many reasons. It was the first biography I had ever read of a revolutionary. It was also an autobiography and I believe that reading an autobiography can be far more emotionally charged experience than a biography. I had been quite emotionally, ideologically and politically attached to Mandela as I had visited South Africa in the 1980s when he was still in prison. I admired him as a secular and a socialist leader. I remember standing on the top of a mountain looking at Robben Island in the distance and admiring Mandela who had sacrificed his life for his cause and his people. He could have died there. I had read his letters and speeches and had translated into Urdu a love letter from him to his wife Winnie from jail for my book of translations of Black Literature. I was impressed by Mandela’s gentle and kind personality. Even being in prison for more than a quarter of a cen290

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

tury did not make him a bitter man. For me that was a human miracle. But when I studied his autobiography, I was quite perturbed to read his detailed confessions of choosing the “path of organized violence” and justifying the murders of innocent civilians by his comrades as “inevitable consequences of a military struggle.” He was willing to bring about a revolution at any cost. He was even prepared to start a civil war if that was necessary to win freedom for blacks. I remember having nightmares when I was reading his autobiography, and was intrigued by my prophetic dream about him long before reading his book. As with Gandhi’s autobiography, I was also struck by his honesty. I did not think anyone would make such confessions. Anne: What do you consider the major conflict in Mandela’s life? Sohail: Mandela acknowledged that for a revolutionary it is almost impossible to keep a balance between his political and family lives. Mandela could not enjoy his family life and see his children grow up as he spent most of his youth in prison and when he came out he confessed that his children realized that their father had become the father of the nation. Anne: You could say that about any creative person who is involved in their special endeavor, be it writing, government, scientific research or the like. They immerse themselves in their work, and the world benefits while 291

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

the family loses. But back to Mandela, what do you think is his most unusual quality? Sohail: I believe Mandela is one of the most talented and successful political negotiators of the twentieth century. He negotiated not only with de Klerk, his enemy, but also with his rival Chief Butulezi of the Zulu tribe. He performed a miracle with the help of de Klerk and Butulezi and saved South Africa in one piece, without partition, a miracle that Gandhi, Jinnah and Mountbatten could not perform. The South African government had proposed to divide the country into eight Bantustans but Mandela resisted that idea. He openly stated that he did not want South Africa to follow in the footsteps of India. He wanted the different African tribes to live with each other peacefully, rather than be divided into Hindustan and Pakistan. After the revolution Mandela also set the stage for democratic elections which Castro and Che Guevara had not been able to achieve in Cuba. Mandela swam from one shore of peace to the other, through the river of violence and blood. I consider it one of the human miracles of the twentieth century. Maybe that is why in spite of his active involvement with armed struggle, the world has reverence for him and awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize for his contributions in bringing freedom to the blacks of South Africa. In the South African story I also have great admiration for de Klerk who played a wiser role than Mountbatten did in India. 292

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

Anne: I think that he was able to do that because he is such a balanced and wise human being. Most people would have hardened their position and become bitter and revengeful during such a long period in prison, but Mandela remained focused on the political, rather than the personal—the future of his people rather than his own person. What did he think of Gandhi and his political strategies? Sohail: Mandela respected Gandhi as he was successful in gaining freedom for Indians but he followed Gandhi only to a point. In the beginning of the struggle he asked his comrades to follow Gandhi’s legacy of noncooperation and civil disobedience, more from a pragmatic point of view than from a philosophical or spiritual position. Mandela was more of a realist than Gandhi. When the struggle escalated, Mandela said goodbye to non-violent methods and took up arms. While Mandela was in prison and he was planning a strike to protest against the oppressive and unjust rules of prisons, one of his comrades suggested he follow Gandhi’s example and embark on a hunger strike. Mandela refused, telling his companions that a hunger strike was not a wise move for a revolutionary guerrilla warrior. The aim of guerrilla war is to hurt the enemy and not hurt oneself. Anne: What are your views on hunger strikes? Sohail: I think a hunger strike is a violent act. It is not openly aggressive but rather, passive-aggressive. 293

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

Gandhi perfected the art. After he became a symbol of non-violence, he used hunger strikes as a political weapon to influence his followers as well as his enemies. He had become so good at it that in spite of lengthy hunger strikes, he never died and always fully recovered. Some see Gandhi’s hunger strike technique as a noble gesture while others see it as an effective way of emotional blackmail. For me it seems like a contradiction, an aggressive act performed by a prophet of peace, a violent act for a noble cause. Anne: I always believed that people who use hunger strikes for political gain are very shrewd—they have to judge correctly the nature of their enemy and the strength of their own position. They need a vast publicity machine to engage the masses and preferably the world. For example, I doubt that hunger strikes would have affected either the Spanish conquistadors or the Nazis running the concentration camps—they would have turned their backs and let strikers starve as an example to the others. It’s a gamble that pays off only if conditions are absolutely right, and although it is, as you say, an aggressive act, it inflicts the most suffering on those undertaking it. • • HO CHI MINH Anne: Since the 1960s Vietnam has become a symbol of anti-colonial and anti-imperialistic resistance. What do you think was the greatest contribution of Ho Chi Minh? Sohail: Ho Chi Minh showed the world that even a superpower like America cannot impose her will on people 294

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

who want to be free and control their own destiny. America continued the war as long as she could but anti-war demonstrations at home forced the government to withdraw the troops. Americans did not want their soldiers to sacrifice their lives on foreign soil for an immoral and unjust war. The Vietnam War also became a symbol for artists, writers and filmmakers who wrote novels and made films to show Americans what role their government and army had been playing in Vietnam. Americans like Mohammad Ali Clay who refused to join the army also made a political statement. Ho Chi Minh conferred a certain respectability upon freedom fighters all over the world. Anne: What was the most unusual part of Ho Chi Minh’s biography? Sohail: I was amazed to find out that all his life he kept changing his name as a part of his guerrilla lifestyle. Ho Chi Minh was just one of those fifty names that he adopted during his life. Anne: What impressed you the most about him? Sohail: He was a practical rather than a theoretical man. He believed in action. He dedicated his life to revolution, rather than wasting time in academic discussions. I thought it was unfortunate that many left wing intellectuals made fun of him all his life when he refused to engage in their pseudo-philosophical discussions. The Russian Communists who followed Marx and Stalin 295

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

tried to convince Ho Chi Minh that industrial revolution was a pre-requisite for socialist revolution but Ho Chi Minh disagreed. He, like Che Guevara, did not accept that objective economic conditions needed to be fulfilled before the revolution. They wanted to prove to the world that if there were enough revolutionaries willing to make sacrifices, the revolution could prevail. Anne: Who do you think most inspired Ho Chi Minh? Sohail: Ho Chi Minh was a great fan of Lenin, whose writings fanned the spark of his revolutionary ideals into a flame. He was disappointed he could not meet his hero when he was in Russia. But he walked miles in the bitter cold to attend his funeral. Anne: What did Ho Chi Minh think of Mohandas Gandhi? Sohail: Ho Chi Minh believed that Gandhi was a reformer and not a revolutionary, as Gandhi did not take part in an armed struggle. Anne: He got rid of the colonial power no less than Ho did—he just accomplished it differently. Who says change has to be violent? Anyway, what do you think was Ho Chi Minh’s ultimate message to the Vietnamese? Sohail: That oppressed people should stop blaming the oppressors and take responsibility for letting foreign powers rule them. He finally convinced his followers that they need not rely on foreign aid to liberate their motherland. At one stage Ho Chi Minh was looking to 296

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

America as the American president had talked about helping people in their struggle for self-rule and democratic government. He learnt the bitter lesson that America supported democracy only if the new leader was going to be an American ally. America knew that if there were elections in Vietnam, people would choose Ho Chi Minh as the Vietnamese people loved him while America saw him as a Communist threat. Finally Ho Chi Minh gained enough strength and political power to force America to review their position in Vietnam. • • CHE GUEVARA Anne: Do you see any similarities between Ho Chi Minh and Che Guevara? Sohail: Yes, there were some similarities as both were revolutionaries and guerrilla warriors but they had as many differences as similarities. Che Guevara was far more aggressive than Ho Chi Minh. Anne: Was it not a contradiction for Che Guevara to be a doctor as well as a guerrilla warrior? Sohail: Yes, I think Che Guevara’s personality was full of contradictions. He was a mixture of extremes. One day he was a medic, the next day a combatant. In the morning he chose the first aid kit and in the evening he preferred the kit full of bullets. He was a healer and a murderer at the same time. I was amazed that he convinced the Russian government to supply Cuba with 297

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

nuclear weapons for protection from America. Che Guevara was one personality in the 20th century who brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. He loved to play Russian roulette. Anne: What impressed you the most about his character? Sohail: He was an honest socialist. When Castro made him a minister in his government after the revolution, he could not live a luxurious life. He could not sleep in a comfortable bed knowing that his comrades were sleeping in the ditches. So he left Cuba and tried to export revolutions to the rest of Latin America. Anne: Well, he had become an action man who couldn’t live the life of a pen-pusher. That wouldn’t have been his style. What do you think was the most unusual incident of his life? Sohail: I was touched to read that before he left Cuba he changed his whole identity. He plucked out all his hair, which is a most painful experience, and he changed so much that even his friends did not recognize him. When visiting his children, posing as their father’s friend, and he kissed his youngest daughter goodbye, she said to her mother, “I think this man loves me.” I thought how difficult it would be for a revolutionary to sacrifice his family life for his cause and his dream. I was also moved to read that when Che Guevara’s parents came from Argentina to Cuba to see him after the revolution, they were shocked to see him transformed from a kind and gentle man into a cold blooded revolutionary. They could not believe what they saw. 298

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

When Che Guevara went to the airport to see his father off, to ease the tension between them and make a goodwill gesture he took off the special watch given to him by Castro and put it on his father’s wrist. His father was so touched by that affectionate gesture that he took off his own watch and put it on Che’s wrist. The exchange of those watches connected father and son once again, bridging the gap created by Che’s involvement with the revolution. Che Guevara’s parents, like many other people did not understand why their son, an Argentine, would get involved in the Cuban revolution. They did not realize that his struggle was not nationalistic—he was a socialist who was committed to fighting a guerrilla war against American capitalism and imperialism worldwide. He wanted Asia, Africa and Latin America to join hands against international oppression. I was quite impressed by his book Guerrilla War. He had taken the basic principles of guerrilla war from Mao’s book of the same title and modified it for the conditions of Latin America. He was hunted down by the CIA, executed and secretly buried. They chopped off his hands to prove to the world that this most wanted man had been caught and killed. He became an international hero when he was only thirty-eight. I was surprised to read that Che Guevara was strongly influenced by Frantz Fanon. After Fanon’s death Che Guevara went to see his widow and was interviewed by her.

299

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

• • FANON Anne: I read Fanon a long time ago and was quite impressed by him. What did you think of his book The Wretched of the Earth? Sohail: I think it is a masterpiece. Being a psychiatrist Fanon did a wonderful job analyzing the psychology of a violent de-colonial movement. I had mixed feelings about the book. I was impressed how Fanon helped his readers understand the dynamics of violence but I was not impressed when he justified violence. I believe that understanding is different than rationalizing, condoning and supporting violence. For me it can be compared to a girl who was repeatedly raped by men when she was young and who grows up to be an angry and bitter woman. One can understand her bitterness but it is not justifiable for her to take the law into her own hands and kill those men. Fanon not only explained violence but also justified it by stating that native people’s violence is the violence they had absorbed over the years and decades from colonial powers and needed to vomit it out to heal themselves. I believe that such an explanation rationalizes the continuation of the cycle of violence. I do not agree with Fanon that the native has to kill the settler to be reborn. Fanon’s book inspired not only ordinary men and women but also revolutionaries like Malcolm X and Che Guevara. Jean Paul Sartre’s introduction also added to the authenticity and influence of the book. I 300

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

was surprised to read an interview of Pakistani scholar and philosopher Eqbal Ahmad who had worked with Fanon in the early sixties in Algeria. Eqbal Ahmad believed that Fanon’s book was misunderstood, that he was not promoting violence, but instead, explaining the phenomenon. I think reformers like Martin Luther King, Jr. realized how such a book could fan sparks of violence into flames, so they encouraged their followers to take the path of Gandhi and Tolstoy rather than Fanon. Anne: It’s sad to see Fanon’s observations about post-revolutionary leaders victimizing their former comrades now playing out in Africa…one would hope that with the colonists thrown out, people could reasonably expect a better life. But the violence and exploitation continues, all the more reprehensible because it’s being perpetrated by those who promised to serve and for whom blood was shed to give them that opportunity. • • KING / TOLSTOY Anne: In your mind, do Martin Luther King, Jr. and Tolstoy have anything in common? Sohail: Yes, both were peace activists who received inspiration from the Christian tradition. King called it Christian love. I was quite surprised to read in Tolstoy’s writings that he believed that for anyone to join an army was an anti-Christian act. He shared stories of practising Christians who preferred to go to jail rather 301

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

than join the army. They did not believe in taking a human life under any circumstances. Anne: Do you see religion as a prerequisite for a peace movement? Sohail: No, I don’t. As a secular humanist I believe that religion and politics have to be kept apart. I believe that for peace of mind, human beings can choose a path that suits them best, be it religious, spiritual or atheistic. But the social traditions and ethics of society need to be based on humanistic values where all people are treated equally. In religious communities and theocratic societies women and minorities are usually deprived of human rights. In international relations we need to respect human rights and try to resolve conflicts through peaceful negotiations rather than with violence and war. And if two communities or countries cannot resolve a conflict, they should request another country or an organization like the United Nations to mediate. In the twentieth century some peace activists belonged to religious traditions and others were of a secular and atheistic orientation. Many countries are still struggling to keep church and state apart. I believe religion is a mixed blessing. King and Gandhi tried to introduce the peaceful part of religion to politics but religious feelings can easily backfire and a war based on economics, race and politics can turn into a holy war. I believe in freedom of religion as well as freedom 302

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

from religion. I believe if we keep religion out of politics, then believers and non-believers can work together to create peaceful communities where all ethnic, religious and cultural groups can flourish. It has been my observation that many reformers of the twentieth century were religious while revolutionaries were secular. I found it interesting to read that the Dalai Lama openly expressed his view that although he had discovered the path of peace through Buddhist tradition, he did not believe that following any religious tradition was a pre-requisite for healthy and peaceful living individually and collectively. • • THE DALAI LAMA Anne: You seem to be an admirer of the Dalai Lama—you read his autobiography with great enthusiasm. Was there anything about his biography that bothered you? Sohail: I was upset to read that he wrote a letter to the Tibetan freedom fighters asking them to lay down their arms. Some of them felt so disheartened by that request that after putting aside their arms, they committed suicide. Anne: What are your views on the Dalai Lama’s relationship with America? Sohail: I have mixed feelings. He shared in his autobiography that at one time the American government had supported the freedom fighters in Tibet against the Chinese army, but the moment China was recognized 303

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

by America, the guerrilla warriors lost that support. The Dalai Lama believed that that American support had been motivated by anti-Communist feelings rather than pro-Tibetan sentiments. It seems to me that as each day passes the chances of the Dalai Lama returning to Tibet are decreasing. Chinese immigrants are flooding into Tibet and it would appear that sooner or later Tibet will lose her cultural and religious identity and become part of China. The Dalai Lama’s relationship with America has always been seen as suspect by left wing intellectuals. They see him more as a spiritual director than a political leader and feel that he was always reluctant to make the sacrifices necessary to achieve an anti-colonial revolution. They feel his reliance on America is not only weakening his case but also making his struggle suspect in the eyes of the world. They view America’s role in Tibet, as in other parts of the world, as less than honorable. Their stated intentions of helping people gain independence and freedom have been a farce. While many revolutionaries are disillusioned by American policy, they are also disenchanted with the Dalai Lama, who they believe should have followed in the footsteps of Ho Chi Minh, Che Guevara or even Mohandas Gandhi, and worked with his own people to gain freedom and independence rather than relying on American aid. Some even feel pleased that he is in exile, as they view him as a religious king, the spiritual 304

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

monarch of the theocratic society of Tibet, a tradition that should be buried rather than resurrected. I feel that the Dalai Lama could not deliver what he hoped for. He reminded me of a writer who wanted to write a political novel but managed to create only a few love poems. Although those love poems were wonderful, he did not fulfill his promise to deliver a political novel. He had a creative miscarriage. The Dalai Lama’s dream did not reach full term. He is still alive and hoping and expecting and wishing and praying and waiting for a miracle but it seems that his dream will never come true. Tibet is gradually being transformed from a Buddhist spiritual community to a capitalist society full of consumerism. It is becoming a Hollywood-style society thronged with tourists. The Dalai Lama’s temporary separation from Tibet might become a permanent divorce. I am curious where he will be buried when he dies, and where will he be reborn, as he believes in re-incarnation. • • AMERICAN IMPERIALISM AND THE 21ST CENTURY Anne: Now that we are facing an unpredictable future, what do you foresee for the 21st. century? Sohail: Every new century seems to be more unpredictable than the last. I believe that since September 11, 2001, the world is experiencing a profound political, social and ideological breakdown where human beings individually and collectively are losing control and 305

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

becoming violent. Whether that breakdown can transform into a breakthrough is hard to predict—that breakdown has been building up for decades. After the Second World War America was attempting to achieve political and economic dominance in the world, but the cold war was keeping America’s dreams in check. When the cold war ended, the balance of power became lop-sided. America could not regain a balance and experienced a political and religious psychosis. It seems as though in the twentieth century, before the de-colonization from European countries was complete, America started to re-colonize the world. America gained economic and political dominance by suppressing all the democratic movements in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America and supported dictators, royal families and army generals. Backing the Shah of Iran after toppling the government of Mosaddagh with the help of the CIA was just one example. That fueled the religious extremism and when Khomeni took over in Iran, America supported the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussain and provided him with weapons of mass destruction including biological and chemical weapons, to kill Iranians and Kurds. Those were the same weapons they could not find anywhere in Iraq before or during the invasion. America played a similar role in Pakistan. They supported army dictator Zia-ul-Haq who as president, hanged Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, a democratically elected leader, brought the Islamic law sharia to Pakistan and 306

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

changed the whole political, social and educational system through the process of Islamization. Through Zia-ul-Haq America supported the Afghani Mujahedeens. Those Afghanis were called freedom fighters as long as they were supporting America and fighting the war against Communism, but were known as terrorists when they started opposing America. Most Americans are gradually coming to realize that their enemy Osama bin Laden was created by their own government. They took him from Saudi Arabia, planted him in Afghanistan and helped him create a guerrilla army trained by experts and provided with the latest weapons. America spent billions of dollars arming thousands of Osama’s followers from sixty Arab and Muslim countries, the same sixty countries that are now on America’s hit list. But when the Soviet Union collapsed and Osama and his followers were abandoned by America they transformed into the Taliban and created Al-Qaeda. There was a significant shift in world politics after the first Gulf War. When America sent troops to Saudi Arabia, Osama bin Laden, being a Saudi, declared war on America. He told the world that he wanted to free Saudi Arabia from the royal family but he could not do that because of the American military presence in Saudi Arabia and American support for the royal family. Osama bin Laden and his disciples still have the weapons that America provided them in the past, and America is now alarmed that she has lost control 307

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

over all those weapons as well as the ones given to Saddam Hussain. America is aware that the genie is out of the bottle. While I was doing research for this project, I came across a wonderful book, Fighting Dirty, in which author Peter Harclerode highlights the details of all the secret agreements between the CIA and the terrorists. He brings to our attention that the world is sitting on a time bomb because the arms provided by America as “lollipops” are in unsafe hands all over the world. American foreign policy in the last fifty years has produced violent religious movements all over the world. We all know that when democratic movements are suppressed and oppressed and people do not find an opportunity to express their feelings and enjoy their basic human rights, they turn to extremes, violence and fanaticism. Even the dictators, kings and generals who support America are sitting on time bombs. They might be assassinated any time, as they are not the true representatives of the masses. After the first Gulf War I wrote a short poem in Urdu titled American Foreign Policy. Whoever sleeps with her Is killed the next morning But still There is a long row of dictators Waiting outside her bedroom

308

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

I feel that the twenty-first century is going to be violent and unpredictable. Since America has created an unstable world by attacking Afghanistan and Iraq and threatening other countries in the name of war on terror, she has to review her foreign policy. If America chooses to listen to the voices of peace and let communities and countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America and Middle East decide their own future then we might have some justice and peace in the world. If she continues with political, economic and military domination then she will have to face guerrilla warriors all over the world, the same warriors that she has been funding and training in the last thirty years. American policies are starting to backfire and Americans may come to feel more vulnerable than any other nation in the world. It is America against the whole world. America is acutely aware that none of the democratically elected governments in the world would support her. Ordinary Americans who are still unaware of the activities of their government and foreign policy because of media censorship are still wondering why does the whole world hate us? Mandela warned Africa and the rest of the world in 1958 that American imperialism was a serious danger to independent states in Africa and that its people must unite before it was too late and fight it out to the bitter end. He pointed out that American imperialism is still imperialism despite the modern clothing it’s dressed in and the sweet talk used to deliver it. 309

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

People the world over are realizing that the war with Iraq is less to do with democracy and freedom and more to do with economics and holy oil. I think time has come for Americans to heed world opinion and choose presidents and governments that will respect poorer countries and comply with international trade and human rights agreements. I believe the future of the twenty-first century lies not in the pronouncements of governments but in the voices of the masses. I feel time has come for all people of the world to develop peace consciousness and express their opinion at a personal, social, political, national and international level so that dictators, kings and generals learn that they cannot push the world into violence, war and chaos. People need to think twice before they pick up guns and mothers should think three times before they send their sons to the army to control, dominate and occupy other countries on the orders of their presidents and generals. The American government has to realize that they may be able to control generals and heads of state by bribing them, but they cannot control the masses who are willing to make all kinds of sacrifices including their lives for the sake of justice, independence and freedom. They have realized that as Frantz Fanon put it, de-colonization is always a violent phenomenon. One other danger that the twenty-first century has to face is the role that religion is going to play in world politics. George Bush and Osama bin Laden, in spite of their many differences, have one thing in common: 310

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

they have both brought religion and politics together, which I consider a dangerous combination. When church, mosque, synagogue or temple join hands with the state, the violence becomes more lethal because the war transforms into a holy war and people start killing each other in the name of God which I consider the worst kind of violence. In the last few decades groups all over the world, whether Muslims, Hindus, Christians or Jews, have been preparing to fight holy wars. It seems that the present century may become the last round between America, the only remaining colonial power, and the rest of world. All of us have to wait and see. When Bush pushed people and governments to choose between “us” and “them”, he did not realize that he was pushing the whole world into a global war with undefined borders for an indefinite period of time. He did not realize that he might start the war but he might not be able to end it.

311

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

LIBERATING IRAQ Dedicated to Robert Fisk, an independent journalist

Every child whose limbs were amputated Every woman whose husband is soaked in blood Every father whose children lie buried in the ruins Every grandmother who will never see her grandchildren grow up Every school that is destroyed Every hospital that is looted Every doctor who is deprived of medications because of sanctions Every building that is hit by cluster bombs Every statue that is toppled over Every oil well that is in flames Every city that is smothered in a cloud of smoke Every villager who is dying of thirst Every animal that is starving And Every bird that is inhaling toxins Is asking the whole world Is this the liberation they promised us? Is this the blood-drenched freedom that our future generations will remember? After all, who used the weapons of mass destruction? Khalid Sohail

312

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

VIOLENCE, PEACE AND THE GREEN ZONE PHILOSOPHY

Since the publication of my books, From Islam to Secular Humanism…A Philosophical Journey and The Art of Living in Your Green Zone, I have been asked on numerous occasions how my views on peace are connected with my Green Zone and humanistic philosophy. In this essay I will share some of the highlights of my philosophy that I have acquired over the decades. PEACE IS MORE THAN ABSENCE OF WAR It has been my observation that many people confuse peace with absence of war. I think that in the way that health is more than absence of disease and illness, similarly peace is more than absence of war. Sometimes the war is not apparent or clearly visible. We saw that during the cold war between the USA and the USSR. There was mutual hostility but there were no bombs dropped on each other’s soil. Each country was afraid of the other’s atomic weapons. So the peace that conceals fear and anxiety is not genuine peace. Similarly since September 11th, 2001, in America there has been an escalating level of fear, which has prompted the government to enact increasingly restrictive laws. 313

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

American government officials state that those laws ensure the safely and security of all citizens, but in reality they are doing the opposite. People are feeling more insecure and nervous and they are unable to travel freely inside or outside the country, as they constantly worry about potential terrorist attacks. That fear and apprehension that is on the rise in America is also spreading to the Middle East and other parts of the world. Americans at home and abroad are feeling vulnerable because of the anger and hostility against their government. The foreign embassies of other countries offer open access to the public while American embassies have retreated behind the walls of their fortifications. Such fear, anxiety and apprehension undermine the peace that we see on the surface. PEACE WITHOUT JUSTICE IS NOT LASTING If we want peace to last, we need to create fair and just societies. Communities where there is a gross imbalance of wealth and power are always vulnerable to angry outbursts and violent outbreaks. When people are suffering because they are discriminated against on the basis of religion, race, gender, language, sexual orientation, class and other characteristics, they become frustrated and angry. Over a period of time that anger can turn to resignation and depression or transform into violent outbursts. That violence can be at a personal or a communal level. At an international level such violence can give birth to wars and initiate a cycle of violence that can be passed on from one generation to another. 314

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

PEACE STARTS IN OUR HEARTS AND MINDS I am quite amazed when people see war as only a political, national and international problem. They believe that only presidents, prime ministers, kings and dictators can begin and end wars. They do not see how every one of us contributes to the creation of a violent or a peaceful society. I believe that wars are the collective expressions of hostilities that we harbor for our enemies. Presidents and military leaders are only the tips of the icebergs. I always believed that our personal lives are intimately connected with our social and political lives. Nations get the leaders they deserve. If they do not like the people who lead them, then they can take steps to change the leadership. To be peaceful one needs to be strong, as weak people are full of fears, apprehensions and vulnerabilities. People who initiate war with others are usually at war with themselves. GREEN ZONE PHILOSOPHY Being a psychotherapist and a writer for more than two decades I have developed a Green Zone Philosophy that is the synthesis of my personal and professional experiences and also an integration of the principles of humanistic psychotherapy and philosophy. Although I have shared the details of my Green Zone Philosophy in my series of books, The Art of Living/Loving/ Working in Your Green Zone, in this essay I will share with you some of its highlights as they connect with my philosophy of personal and global peace.

315

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

GREEN ZONE PEOPLE It is my belief that to lead a healthy, happy and peaceful life we all need to live in our Green Zone; and to find our Green Zone we need to discover that special gift that life has given us. When we discover our special gift and make it an integral part of our dream then it provides us with our goal and makes our lives meaningful. To live in our Green Zone we adopt a lifestyle in which we become aware how different people and circumstances affect us. We not only learn to recognize the stressful circumstances that push us into our distressing Yellow and Red Zones, but also discover ways to recover from those Zones and techniques to restrain ourselves from falling into them in the first place. In this way, even when we enter Yellow and Red Zones of anger, frustration and sadness, we can drive through them rather than parking there for a long time. People living in the Green Zone do not spend too much time in Yellow and Red Zones. To adopt a Green Zone Lifestyle we need to become aware of our conditioned self that is guided by should, must and have to and also our natural self that is guided by like to, want to and love to. To discover a Green Zone Lifestyle we need to develop our natural self that brings us excitement, enthusiasm and happiness. I encourage people to develop a hobby that can become a passion and then transform into a dream. People follow different routes to discover their Green Zone Lifestyle. Some take the road of creativity while others take the route of spirituality and still others become part of organizations that serve humanity by 316

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

doing voluntary work. Whichever road people follow, the goal is to get in touch with one’s best qualities and then build a lifestyle around those qualities. It is not possible for communities to be in the Green Zone if people, who are the building blocks of the community, are not living in their Green Zone. I believe that every human being has the responsibility to discover their Green Zone and if they cannot do it on their own then they need to ask help from friends and relatives or seek professional help from psychotherapists. GREEN ZONE RELATIONSHIPS After people become aware of what Zones figure prominently in their personal lives, I suggest that they review their close relationships. Like people, relationships also live in the Green, Yellow and Red Zones. People who live in the Green Zone also enjoy relationships in the Green Zone. In my professional life, when I meet people who are involved in Yellow and Red relationships I ask them to approach those people and suggest to them that they work together to bring the relationships into the Green Zone by communicating better and resolving conflicts. If the other person is not interested in resolving conflicts then I suggest to people that they have to distance themselves so that they are not affected by the negativity in the relationship. Sometimes if people cannot sort out their differences on their own, I suggest to them to consider improving their relationship by getting a mediator who can be a friend or a therapist. I share with people that for a relationship to be 317

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

in the Green Zone both parties have to be motivated to keep it there. One person alone cannot keep the relationship in the Green Zone, as effective communication is possible only when both parties are in the Green Zone. GREEN ZONE SYSTEMS Alongside being involved in emotional relationships, people interact with systems on a regular basis. Those systems are family, work and community For people to live in the Green Zone they have to become aware of the Zone in which each system lives. It is very hard for people to live in the Green Zone if the system they are interacting with is in the Red Zone, as systems are usually stronger and more powerful than individuals. To cope with Red Zone Systems I encourage people to “wear an emotional raincoat”, which is a specific mental preparation in order to remain minimally affected by the negativity and toxicity of the system. For example, if the work environment is in the Red Zone, I encourage people to create a support network where colleagues can find ways to cope with the stresses and help each other deal with them. Becoming aware of the stressors and the supports help people cope with Red Zone Systems. Many people try to deal with it for a while and then find ways to leave and discover a Green Zone System by getting a different job or moving to a different community. When we examine people’s lives from childhood to old age, we realize that people learn certain ways to express themselves and deal with their problems, depending upon 318

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

their environments. Fortunate are the children who grow up in Green Zone families, schools and communities, who have caring, nurturing and loving adults in their lives who help them develop their potential and talent and guide them to discover their Green Zone Lifestyle. Such children have good role models and are able to develop positive selfesteem and self image and become healthy, happy and peaceful adults. Such children develop peace rather than violent consciousness and learn that conflicts can be resolved peacefully whether in the family, school, community or in the world. They learn to respect other people’s traditions and lifestyles. They develop a humanistic philosophy and lifestyle in which people are accepted for their strengths and qualities and respected for their contributions to society rather than judged for their limitations and weaknesses. PEACE / VIOLENT CONSCIOUSNESS I have been quite intrigued how children’s peace consciousness is transformed into violent consciousness by certain organizations and institutions. It has been my observation and experience that the institutions of religion and nationalism can play a significant role in developing violent consciousness. Some religions, rather than encouraging an attitude of respect for other religious and spiritual traditions, not only insist that their religion is better but also feel that they have to impose it on others either by preaching or by declaring holy wars. Human history is full of such holy wars whether they were called crusades or 319

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

jihads, in which millions of innocent people were killed in the name of God. Similarly wars were declared and fought for nationalism and people were asked to sacrifice their lives in the name of patriotism. It is my opinion that religious and political wars throughout history not only killed millions of innocent people, they also developed cycles of violence in which hatred for a certain religious or political group or nation has been passed on from one generation to another. Such hatred is very dangerous for the future of humanity. I believe that to create peace consciousness we need to review our traditions and philosophies of religion and nationalism and develop a philosophy of respecting other people’s traditions, lifestyles and national boundaries. I do not believe that any government has the right to invade another country and insist on changing their government. I am also of the opinion that to develop peace consciousness we have to teach people to develop not only empathy for the victim but also compassion for the oppressor. To stop the cycle of violence and transform and change oppressors, we need mediators who have a positive relationship with them so that they can learn that violence and war are not only harmful for the oppressed but are dangerous for the oppressors as well as their families. When victims become stronger, they retaliate. The tradition of fighting hate with hate has not served humanity very well. I think the time has come to review our traditions of resolving personal, social and political conflicts. The current war against Iraq is forcing us to review our personal, 320

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

national and international traditions and philosophies. I believe that international organizations like the United Nations have the role not only of passing resolutions but also of implementing them. There are a number of unresolved political issues in the world, for example, Kashmir or Palestine, where the United Nations has passed resolutions so that people of those lands can choose their government and lifestyle, but those resolutions were not universally respected. Such a situation has created global unrest. Since the fall of the USSR the world balance of power has become lopsided and America is the only superpower. In the war against Iraq, the United Nations played a dangerous role. They first disarmed Iraq and then failed to prevent America from attacking. In this way the lives of Iraqi citizens as well as American soldiers were put at risk. I believe that for us to live in a peaceful world, either we need to have a strong and effective United Nations that is respected by all counties or we need to foster global peace consciousness so that the masses can restrain governments from declaring war. I believe that if peace consciousness prevails, young men and women will think twice before they join any army, violent religious organization or terrorist group. The day that people realize that war is also a form of state terrorism inflicted by strong and powerful countries on weak and vulnerable countries, we might have a different world. We will not have to live under constant threat of acts of violence and terrorism, or laws that are restrictive, discriminatory and punitive. I believe that we as human beings are at a crossroads. 321

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

We have to decide individually and collectively to choose the road of violence, terrorism, committing collective suicide and murder, or join the road of peace and live in a harmonious world. To do that we need to develop global peace consciousness, so that our children and grandchildren do not have to face wars and terrorism. I am quite aware that it is my dream but I also believe that our dreams provide us the motivation to create change and make our lives more meaningful. My dream of a peaceful world helps me live and grow in my Green Zone and I hope that more people, families and communities discover their Green Zone so that we can all create and live in a peaceful world.

322

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

KILLING IN THE NAME OF GOD

There was a time …I believed in Holy War …I believed all non-Muslims were my enemies …I was willing to give my life for a Holy Cause and …I was willing to kill in the name of God. Now when I think about those years, a cold chill runs down my spine and I feel ashamed and embarrassed. How could I think like that? How could anybody think like that? How can anybody believe in a merciful God and then be so cruel as to take a human life? How can anybody kill a human being and then consider his cause noble and holy? When I repeatedly see scenes of Kabul, Afghanistan and Peshawar, Pakistan on television, my mind fills with the images of my past. That is the part of the world where I spent my childhood, my teenage years, and my young adulthood before immigrating to the western world. The day President George Bush decided to bomb Afghanistan and asked Pakistani President Pervaiz Musharraf to support 323

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

him, I felt perturbed. I thought back to the days when I wanted to join the Pakistani army and fight a Holy War against India, against Hindus, against my enemies. I vividly remember filling out the enlistment forms and putting them on the table for my father to sign. Those forms remained there, unsigned, for two weeks. I assumed he was so busy that he did not have time to read them. Finally, with the closing date approaching, I asked my father, “When are you going to sign my papers?” “I am not going to sign them.” I was shocked at his brief but firm answer. “Why not?” “I don’t want you to go into the army.” When he saw my puzzled look, he asked me to sit down and he tried to explain his position. “Dear son,” he said, “by signing these papers, I will be giving you permission to kill. If you join the army, you will take an oath that if your commander says, ‘Shoot!’ you would shoot. If Pakistan ever had a war with Iran or Afghanistan, then you might be asked to kill your Muslim brothers and sisters. I cannot give you my blessing to do that.” After listening to my father’s lecture, I got up without saying a word and left the room. I was disappointed in him. I did not understand his rationale. I was preoccupied with our Hindu enemies in India. I had never imagined the possibility of going to war with Iran or Afghanistan. After that disappointment, I always considered my father idealistic, rather than realistic. But when President Bush declared war 324

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

on Afghanistan and asked for the support of the Pakistani Army, I realized that my father was more far-sighted than I. When I ask myself, “Why did I want to join the Pakistani Army and fight a Holy War?” I am reminded of the 1965 war with India. I now believe that that war made lasting impressions on my thirteen-year-old psyche. When I reminisce about that phase of my life, I remember that in 1965, political tensions had started to escalate between India and Pakistan. The dispute with India over Kashmir had surfaced again. The sparks of rivalries and prejudices finally turned into flames, and both countries declared war on the sixth of September. The whole nation’s life was turned upside down. Nobody knew how to deal with such a major crisis. The government decreed a complete blackout after sunset. No one was allowed to burn a match, light a candle or turn on a lamp, which could give our enemies the clues where to bomb in the middle of the night. Soon people could see in the dark. Digging trenches was a part of getting ready for the war. People were encouraged to dig them close to their houses so that they could get their children into them quickly. It was also suggested that the trenches be made in L, V or W shapes so that even if people sitting in one wing were affected, the others would be protected. The nation was in a state of emergency, with everybody scared and unsure about their safety and the security of their families. It was interesting that people who hardly talked to each other prior to the crisis started making plans to dig 325

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

trenches together. The men of the families living around us decided to dig them outside our courtyard because they were afraid that small children might fall into them. However, digging them outside the wall meant that due to the proximity of the river, water flooded them to a depth of three feet. The whole area seemed to be waterlogged. Finally, they dug trenches that were I-shaped. They were not very satisfactory, but something was better than nothing. At least they had enough room for women and children, while the men used to sit outside. Even people from the neighboring streets came running when the siren sounded. I will never forget one incident in the middle of the night when the siren had sounded and everybody had come rushing to the trench. The women and children were huddled in the trench and the men were crouching outside on the flat ground. Suddenly one of our neighbors, Mohammad Sharif, started to shake and shiver. He was so afraid, he was grinding his teeth. One of the women felt so sorry for him that she came out and asked him to jump into the trench. He was utterly embarrassed. He was caught between fear of the bombs and shame at wanting to sit with the women. Finally, fear won out, and he crawled into the trench. That day I realized I never wanted to become weak and vulnerable and afraid like Mohammad Sharif. I wanted to be a mojahid, a brave and strong holy warrior, who could sacrifice his life for his faith. The declaration of war changed the psyche of the nation. People became very patriotic and religious. Political 326

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

leaders made patriotic speeches, maulanas, the religious leaders, preached special sermons, and poets wrote stirring patriotic songs sung by popular singers. People offered up special prayers for a Pakistani victory, believing it was a Holy War, a jihad. Many nights I saw Indian planes dropping bombs and flames leaping to life in the destroyed targets. The neighborhood was often shaken by the staccato of our anti-craft guns firing at Indian planes, creating havoc in the skies. One night after seeing an Indian plane, a villager got so overwhelmed with his religious emotions that he tried to shoot down the plane with his rifle and unfortunately the whole village got bombed. We saw the ruins and ashes the next day. It was so sad. The whole village paid the price for one man’s fanaticism and stupidity. People became so religious that it spilled over into superstition, and there was talk of miracles. One of the stories was that when an Indian plane dropped a bomb near the River Attak, people saw an old man clothed in green catch a thousand-pound bomb in his holy hands and quietly drop it into the river. People believed it was one of the miracles of Islam. People were so emotionally involved that it was not uncommon to see hundreds of men and women lined up in front of shops all over the cities to listen to war news. That war ended in seventeen days and the public was made to believe that the Pakistani army had won. One of the heroes who received a number of medals and awards for his extraordinary performance in the war was a pilot 327

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

named M.M. Alam, who shot down six Indian planes in less than a minute. Those were the days when the nation was proud of their army and air force. I was no exception. After the war the intoxication with patriotism and religion remained for a long time like a sinister hangover. To enshrine it in the national psyche, the 6th of September was declared a national holiday. I was so impressed by the war heroes that I wanted to join the Pakistani Army myself and fight for my religion, and become a hero, like M.M. Alam. When people ask me, “How did your Holy war consciousness transform into peace consciousness?” I keep quiet. I find it hard to answer the question in a few sentences. I think it was a gradual process. Over the years, I discovered that we all have multiple identities and some identities are more significant than others. Like many other Muslims, I considered my religious identity to be primary and my ethnic, linguistic and cultural identities secondary. Eventually I realized that inside Islam there were sub-identities because of different sects in the Muslim World. The strongest sects were Shiites and Sunnis. I was shocked to find out that those identities were so strong that people were ready to kill each other in the name of God. For many years on the Tenth of Moharram, a special day of mourning for Shiites, there were violent confrontations between Shiites and Sunnis in numerous cities in which many people died. I also read about the centuries of Holy Wars between 328

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

Muslims, Jews and Christians throughout Europe and the East. I gradually realized that religion divided people into believers and non-believers and that many religious people had a tribal mentality. Some of them identified so strongly with the tribe that they were ready to go to war with followers of another religion, another tribe, and call it a Holy War. Now I find it hard to believe that for many years I was one of them. There was a time I used to wonder what my religious identity would have been, had I been born into a Hindu family in India or a Communist family in China. In the journey from a religious attitude to a humanistic attitude towards life, a number of writers, philosophers and mystics guided my way. The first writer who challenged my thinking was Saadat Hasan Minto. He had written thought-provoking stories about the 1947 tragedy following Partition, in which thousands of innocent men, women and children were slaughtered on the altar of religion. In one of his stories he wrote, “Why do you say one hundred Muslims went to heaven and one hundred Hindus went to hell? Why don’t you say we lost two hundred precious human lives?” Minto was the first intellectual with a humanist attitude, which made me aware that all human beings were equal and that their lives were sacred. He helped me respect other people’s faiths, beliefs and lifestyles. His writings made a dent in my conservative, traditional, religious tribal thinking. After Minto, when I read the teachings of Buddha and the writings of Kabir Das, I could not imagine 329

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

how I could hate the followers of such peace-loving philosophers and poets. Buddha helped me discover the spiritual dimension of life. He said, “One’s own experience is the ultimate teacher” and Kabir Das helped me transcend religious traditions and institutions and embrace all of humanity. He wrote, O Brahman! I say only What I have seen With my own eyes And you keep quoting The scriptures I speak To unravel the mystery But you insist On keeping it Tangled How can our paths Cross?(Ref 1) Buddha and Kabir Das, like many other mystics, helped me discover my own truth and respect other people’s truth. They taught me to accept that there are as many truths as people and as many realities as pairs of eyes in this world. As I traveled through India and met wonderful writers, intellectuals and ordinary people who welcomed me with open arms and hearts, I discovered that Hindus were my brothers and sisters. When I traveled in the Middle East, I 330

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

realized that Muslims, Christians and Jews were all children of Abraham, and being followers of the monotheistic tradition, they had more similarities than differences. And when I traveled in Europe, the West Indies, North America, South America and South Africa, I discovered that all human beings share the same moon, the same sun, the same winds, the same mountains and the same oceans. Gradually I realized we are all children of Mother Earth, members of the same tribe, the same family, the Human Family. Now when I turn on the television and see Iraq being bombed, I feel so grateful to my father for not signing those papers. It was interesting that years later, after I became a doctor, he asked me once, “Son! Do you still want to join the army?” “Why do you ask?” “I would have no objection if you wanted to join the army now. As a doctor, you would be a healer, not a murderer. You could even help your suffering enemies.” That day, I realized that my father was a humanist at heart, as he loved human beings and humanity. Years later, I remembered my father when I read Walt Whitman’s poem that he had written in the Soldier’s Hospital in Washington while working as a volunteer with the wounded soldiers of the Civil War. He wrote, For my enemy is dead, a man divine as myself is dead, I look where he lies white-faced and stiff in the coffin …I draw near, 331

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

Bend down and touch lightly with my lips the white face in the coffin.(Ref 2) That poem helped me see a human being even in my enemy. It helped me see the unity in our diversity, a common bond of humanity we all share as human beings. To kill other human beings in the name of a merciful God is the ultimate contradiction human beings experience individually and collectively. We, as human beings, have our dark sides and we have a potential to kill. Throughout history, human beings have been killing other human beings for personal, social, national and political reasons. I believe that the most tragic killings are those done for religious reasons. The worst wars are Holy Wars as they are fought in the name of a compassionate and merciful God. Krishnamurti highlighted that contradiction in these words, “The men who dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima said God was with them, those who flew from England to destroy Germany said that God was their copilot. The dictators, the prime ministers, the generals, the presidents, all talk about God, and they have immense faith in God. Are they doing service, making a better life for man? The people who say they believe in God have destroyed half of the world and the world is in complete misery.”(Ref 3) In the present international tragedy, when we read the speeches of Osama bin Laden and George Bush, we are struck by a number of similarities. Each believes he is fighting for justice and peace. Each believes the other is a 332

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

terrorist. Each believes he is on the right path. Both have declared a Holy War, and are willing to kill innocent people. One calls it a Crusade, and the other a jihad. Both believe God is on their side.

REFERENCES Ref. 1 Kuman, Sehdev. The Vision of Kabir. Ontario Canada: 1984. Ref. 2 Henry, Thomas and Lees, Dana. Living Biographies of Great Poets. USA: Garden City Books, 1984. Ref. 3 Krishnamurti. The First and Last Freedom. London: Krishnamurti Foundation, 1986.

333

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

IN SEARCH OF A NEW PROPHET

In the 21st century Humanity is in search of a new messiah A new buddha A new devta A new prophet A prophet who has a song of peace in his heart A message of justice in his mind A melody of love in his soul A prophet Unlike the prophets of the 20th century Whether capitalists or communists Atheist fanatics or religious fundamentalists Royal rulers or army dictators Would not Abuse power Fight holy wars Embrace violence to create peace And if we cannot find such a prophet Then We have to realize as human beings We have reached that stage of human evolution

334

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

That each one of us can become A messiah, a buddha, a devta, a prophet By Getting in touch with our sacred selves Finding our inner peace Transcending our prejudice and resentment, anger and hate Discovering harmony with Mother Nature Embracing other human beings Rising above the Class and ethnic Gender and linguistic Religious and cultural Historical and geographical Differences and conflicts Offering an olive branch to our enemies Our distant cousins Realizing that we are all Members of the same family The human family The family of the heart.

335

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

CHAPTER

1

—•—

About the Author

Dr. Khalid Sohail One of the values I have developed as a publisher is to be ready to fight for democracy and freedom of information. That the works be carefully researched and well presented to a broad spectrum of the public becomes a pact with our readers to assure the message is the best possible. Dr. Sohail, years spent in the research and writing of this book, carried his study from one type of peaceful revolutionary to others with an attitude of violence. Such discoveries were fascinating, bringing new and revealing qualities and passions about the men who grew to be the leaders of the day throughout the century of their influence. If we are to understand the reasons behind today’s terrorism, we must search deeper into history, as Dr. Sohail 336

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

has done, to see how, amongst other reasons, the imperialism of western nations has left an undying legacy of mistrust and dislike. If we are to finally achieve the peace we so earnestly seek, the answer lies in understanding the viewpoints of Mid-eastern and Asian nations and their reasons and ambitions for their future. Dr. Sohail is a leading psychotherapist with his practice, Creative Psychotherapy Clinic, located in Southern Ontario. He is the author of many books with genres ranging from Poetry to True Crime, Self-help, Relationships, Sex, etc. As a Humanist, his interests are very broad as he seeks ways to assist patients and to add to his personal growth by his interest in history and philosophy. He is a film producer of documentaries on family and individual relationships. Bill Belfontaine Publisher

337

DR. KHALID SOHAIL

CHAPTER

1

—•—

About the Illustrator

Michael A. Petherick Currently attending his last year at Laurier University in Waterloo, Ontario, Michael has received two scholarships and has been recognized as Best Visual Artist in his school. Born and raised in the Toronto area, he has grown to appreciate the many cultures, arts and opportunites the city holds. Since childhood Michael has leaned toward drawing. Black and white sketchings line the walls of his parents’ homes. In high school, he was dubbed “the next Dali.” Michael designs murals in the Kitchener/Waterloo area for businesses. He plans to receive his Doctorate and teach art in the future.

338

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE

PRAYING OF THE MASSES by Michael A. Petherick

339

A Special Offer from The Author Dr. Sohail commissioned special drawings for his book to create anew the visual character of the twelve men who’s life and times, actions and philosophy, he spent so many years researching to create this historic tableau. The original drawings, from a talented artist’s interpretation of the subjects, are valuable and under the author’s lock and key. As a sharing person, he makes available copies directly from the original, keepsakes that should be suitably framed. Price includes shipping and handling. To order your copy of one or more of the illustrations seen in this book complete the order form on the facing page and mail to the address shown below. You can also order by email <[email protected]>. Each drawing has been reproduced 8 1/2" x 11", ready to frame. (Cheques and money orders to be payable to WhiteKnight Publications)

White Knight Publications Suite 103, One Benvenuto Place Toronto, Ontario M4V 2L1 Allow 2-4 weeks for shipping.

340

ORDER FORM Qty / Price Per

Name

Total

PR#1 Martin Luther King

_____ x $12.50

$____________

PR#2 The Dalai Lama

_____ x $12.50

$____________

PR#3 Mohandas Gandhi

_____ x $12.50

$____________

PR#4 Rabindranath Tagore

_____ x $12.50

$____________

PR#5 Mohammad Iqbal

_____ x $12.50

$____________

PR#6 Mohammed Ali Jinnah

_____ x $12.50

$____________

PR#7

Kamal Ataturk

_____ x $12.50

$____________

PR#8

Nelson Mandela

_____ x $12.50

$____________

PR#9 Ho Chi Minh

_____ x $12.50

$____________

PR#10 Che Guevara

_____ x $12.50

$____________

PR#11 Frantz Fanon

_____ x $12.50

$____________

PR#12 Leo Tolstoy

_____ x $12.50

$____________

PR#S Complete Set

_____ x $100.00 $____________

Subtotal

_____ x $10.00

$____________

Canadian orders add 7% GST _____ x $10.00

$____________

TOTAL

$____________

Name Address

City / Town

Prov.

P/C

Enclosed is a cheque or money order in the amount of $_____________

341

WHITE KNIGHT’S “REMARKABLE WOMEN” SERIES Conscious Women — Conscious Lives Book One A book that lives up to expectations that women across North America constantly provide the nurturing component that continues to make our countries so great. These stories from across Canada and the United States of America, bring home those concern that women have for other women providing love, nourishment and hope for our present and future generations. Remarkable women, everyone. Thank you! ISBN 0-9734186-1-3 216 pages PB US $13.95Cdn $19.95

Conscious Women — Conscious Lives Book Two The second book in the Conscious Women — Conscious Lives series offers more extraordinary stories of healing and transformation by some of North America’s leading women authorities on healing, spirituality and body, mind wisdom. Each story is true and each brings healing, understanding, comfort and proof of women’s courage. ISBN 09736705-0-9 210 pages PB US $13.95 Cdn $19.95

Sharing MS

This informative book by the author and two women friends with Multiple Sclerosis, is a beacon of common sense lighting the way of those who have MS or suspect they may be afflicted, as well as being helpful to family, friends and health professionals. Read this book then call the MS Society Chapter in your local telephone book for information about your concerns regarding Multiple Sclerosis. ISBN 09730949-7-4 218 pages PB US $13.95 Cdn $19.95

The Unusual Life and Times of Nancy Ford-Inman This story is about a most remarkable woman who contributed so much to Britain’s literature, the theatre, media and the war effort in spite of a major physical handicap. Badly crippled by Cerebral Palsy at an early age, yet she fought her way to become the author of almost 60 romantic novels and journalistic endeavors too numerous to count. ISBN 0-9730949-8-2 238 pages PB US $13.95 Cdn $19.95 To order, contact one of the distributors shown on the copyright page or be in touch with the book store nearest to you.

BOOKS BY WHITE KNIGHT PUBLICATIONS ADOPTION (Gay) A Swim Against The Tide – David R.I. McKinstry BIOGRAPHY The Life and Times of Nancy Ford-Inman – Nancy Erb Kee HEALTH Prescription for Patience – Dr. Kevin J Leonard HUMOUR An Innkeeper’s Discretion Book One An Innkeeper’s Discretion Book Two – David R.I. McKinstry INSPIRATION Conscious Women / Conscious Lives Book One Conscious Women / Conscious Lives Book Two – Darlene Montgomery Happiness: Use It or Lose It – Rev. Dr. David “Doc” Loomis How I Became Father to 1000 Children – Rev. Dr. John S. Niles Sharing MS (Multiple Sclerosis) – Linda Ironside Sue Kenney’s My Camino – Sue Kenney

PERSONAL FINANCES Don’t Borrow $Money$ Until You Read This Book – Paul E Counter POETRY Loveplay – Joe Fromstein and Linda Stitt Two Voices / A Circle of Love – Serena Williamson Adams POLITICS AND HISTORY Prophets of Violence / Prophets of Peace – Dr. K. Sohail Turning Points – Ray Argyle SELF-HELP Love, Sex and Marriage – Dr. K. Sohail/Bette Davis The Art of Living in Your Green Zone – Dr. K. Sohail The Art of Loving in Your Green Zone – Dr. K. Sohail The Art of Working in Your Green Zone – Dr. K. Sohail/Bette Davis TRUE CRIME - POLICE 10-45 Spells Death – Kathy McCormack Carter Life on Homicide - Former Police Chief Bill McCormack The Myth of The Chosen One – Dr. K. Sohail

RECOMMENDED READING FROM OTHER PUBLISHERS HISTORY An Amicable Friendship (Canadiana) – Jan Th. J. Krijff RELIGION From Islam to Secular Humanism – Dr. K. Sohail BIOGRAPHY Gabriel’s Dragon – Arch Priest Fr. Antony Gabriel EPIC POETRY Pro Deo – Prof. Ronald Morton Smith