Fault of the Victims: Gandhi on Genocide and Human Nature

In the Hind Swaraj, Gandhi claims that when a people are oppressed, it is due to their own actions. In class, it was argued that this was to give Indians a sense of agency: if the British controlled India due to Indian actions, then Indians could change those actions and gain their freedom. However, there is another side to this dialog, which is that if oppressed people are to be blamed for their own suffering then those who are oppressing them or benefitting from their oppression are excused in their actions. This is especially relevant when those suffering from the abuse truly are without recourse, as in cases of genocide. Gandhi’s assigning blame to the victims stems from the dissonance between his view on human nature and the actions societies carrying out genocide.

In chapter 7, after describing Indian civilization as superior to modern British civilization, the editor is asked by the reader why the superior civilization is the one being oppressed. In response, the editor claims “The English have not take India; we have given it to them. They are not in India because of their strength, but because we keep them” (38). By laying the blame for Britain’s dominance on the actions of Indians, Gandhi both avoids contradicting his argument that India is the superior civilization, and is able to lead into his argument that Indians can free themselves from the British by non-violently rejecting the trade and commercialization which led to the invasion of the East Indian Trading Company and Britain’s continued commercial exploitation of India.

While Gandhi’s initially applies the assignment of blame on the victim to India’s colonization, he later attempts to apply the model to all cases of oppression. When challenged by the reader to point at instances in history where spiritual purity has led to political change, the editor instead points out that “Those people who have been warred against have disappeared, as, for instance, the natives of Australia, of whom hardly a man was left alive by he intruders. Mark, please, that these natives did not use soul-force in self-defense” (87). While Gandhi’s view that oppressed people are responsible for their situation helped him make his arguments concerning passive resistance in India, when he exports it to other situations he starts to blame the deaths of entire peoples on their failure to follow his spiritual beliefs. The subjects of genocide become responsible for their situation, as they resisted extermination through physical force rather than relying on “soul-force”.

The difference between the Indians, who represent a potential market for British goods, and the natives of Australia, who were considered simply in the way and exterminated, is not addressed in Gandhi’s argument. His discomfort these sort of grim, complex situations is evident in the awkwardness of the exceptions he makes in his doctrine of non-violence. In the footnotes, one learns Gandhi actively recruited for World War I. At the time of WWII, he stated “If there ever could be a justifiable war in the name of and for humanity, a war against Germany, to prevent the wanton persecution of a whole race, would be completely justified. But I do not believe in any war” (84). Even in the case of the capital-H Holocaust (as opposed to other holocausts, such as the one in Australia) Gandhi was unwilling to act to stop the perpetrator.

The issue Gandhi faced when confronted with genocide was that these actions directly contradict his understanding of human nature. This understanding is best illustrated by his belief that, if allowed to openly steal, a thief will “come to learn about your broad and loving heart, he repents, he begs your pardon, returns you your things, and leaves off the stealing habit” (82). Gandhi view of soul-power is based on the belief that, if shown love, pity, and acceptance, there is something internal to people which will lead them to repent their actions. Gandhi gives a small concession that this may not be a universal truth when he states “at least in the majority of cases, if not all, the force of love and pity is infinitely greater than the force of arms” (82). However, this allows for only a few exceptions. Genocides involving entire cultures exterminating one another occur on such a scale that, should the perpetrators truly be exempt from the force of pity and love, Gandhi’s view of humanity would need to drastically change. As such, he attempts to apply the ideas of soul-power to these situations, blaming the victims of genocide for not being spiritual enough.

Question:
Where does Gandhi draw his ideas on human nature from? Does the existence of circumstances where is ideas of universal non-violence were drawn into question have any significance to his idea of a universal religion?