Japan is knocking at our gates. What are we to do in
a non-violent way? If we were a free country, things could be done
non-violently to prevent the Japanese from entering the country. As
it is, non-violent resistance could commence the moment they
effected a landing. Thus non-violent resisters would refuse them any
help, even water. For it is no part of their duty to help anyone to
steal their country. But if a Japanese had missed his way and was
dying of thirst and sought help as a human being, a non-violent
resister, who may not regard anyone as his enemy, would give water
to the thirsty one. Suppose the Japanese compel resisters to give
them water, the resisters must die in the act of resistance. It is
conceivable that they will exterminate all resisters. The underlying
belief in such non-violent resistance is that the aggressor will, in
time, be mentally and even physically tired of killing non-violent
resisters. He will begin to search what this new (for him) force is
which refuses co-operation without seeking to hurt, and will
probably desist from further slaughter. But the resisters may find
that the Japanese are utterly heartless and that they do not care
how many they kill. The non-violent resisters will have won the day
inasmuch as they will have preferred extermination to submission.
But things will not happen quite so simply as I have put them. There are at least four parties in the country. First, the British and the army they have brought into being. The Japanese declare that they have no designs upon India. Their quarrel is only with the British. In this they are assisted by some Indians who are in Japan. It is difficult to guess how many, but there must be a fairly large number who believe in the declaration of the Japanese and think that they will deliver the country from the British yoke and retire. Even if the worst happens, their fatigue of the British yoke is so great that they would even welcome the Japanese yoke for a change. This is the second party. The third are the neutrals, who though not non-violent will help neither the British nor the Japanese.
The fourth and last are non-violent resisters. If they are only a few, their resistance will be ineffective except as an example for the future. Such resisters will calmly die wherever they are but will not bend the knee before the aggressor. They will not be deceived by promises. They do not seek deliverance from the British yoke through the help of a third party. They believe implicitly in their own way of fighting and no other. Their fight is on behalf of the dumb millions who do not perhaps know that there is such a thing as deliverance. They have neither hatred for the British nor love for the Japanese. They wish well to both as to all others. They would like both to do what is right. They believe that non-violence alone will lead men to do right under all circumstances. Therefore, if for want of enough companions non-violent resisters cannot reach the goal, they will not give up their way but pursue it to death.
The task before the votaries of non-violence is very difficult. But no difficulty can baffle men who have faith in their mission.
This is going to be a long drawn out agony. Let nonviolent resisters not make impossible attempts. Their powers are limited. A resister in Kerala is not physically responsible for the defence of Assam which is just now in imminent danger. If Assam is non-violently inclined, it is well able to take care of itself. If it is not, no party of nonviolent resisters from Kerala can help it or any other province. Kerala can help Assam etc. by demonstrating its non-violence in Kerala itself. The Japanese army, if it gets a foothold in India, will not stop at Assam. In order to defeat the British, it has to overrun the whole country. The British will fight every inch of the ground. Loss of India will probably be admission of complete defeat for them. But whether it is so or not, it is quite clear that Japan will not rest till India is wholly in her hands. Hence non-violent, resisters must remain at their posts wherever they are.
One thing has to be made clear. Where the British army is actually engaging the 'enemy', it would be perhaps improper for direct resistance to function. It will not be non-violent resistance when it is mixed with, or allies itself to, violence.
Let me therefore reiterate what I have said so often. The best preparation for, and even the expression of, nonviolence lies in the determined pursuit of the constructive programme. Anyone who believes that without the backing of the constructive programme he will show non-violent strength when the testing time comes will fail miserably. It will be, like the attempt of a starving unarmed man to match his physical strength against a fully fed and panoplied soldier, foredoomed to failure. He who has no belief in the constructive programme has, in my opinion, no concrete feeling for the starved millions. He who is devoid of that feeling cannot fight non-violently. In actual practice the expansion of my non-violence has kept exact pace with that of my identification with starved humanity. I am still far from the non-violence of my conception, for am I not still far away from the identification of my conception with dumb humanity?
On the train to Wardha,