In Hind Swaraj, Gandhi claims that goals and the means of achieving
them are inextricably linked. One reason he advocates for non-violence is
because he believes a violent response will not eliminate British society but
will instead help perpetuate it. Instead he calls for Indians to abandon
British civilization in favor of the better but oppressed Indian civilization.
Applying the same theory of the interconnection of outcome and process to Battle of Algiers maintains the
possibility for violence. The goal for the Algerians is very similar to that of
the Indians: self-rule. However, the methods supported by Gandhi are quite
different from those used by the FLN. For the FLN freedom for Algerians must
come at any cost. For Gandhi, freedom from the British only comes if the people
achieve it together. Though he does not directly address the value of life in
regards to means and ends, Gandhi’s view puts significant value on life. If someone dies for the cause of self-rule,
they have no opportunity for self-rule. Because Gandhi believes that self-rule
begins with the individual, as discussed in class, death of the individual does
nothing to achieve self-rule.
In
contrast, the FLN places a different value on human life. For the FLN, freedom
comes first, people second. This is clearly shown through the escalation of
violence in Battle of Algiers. Rather than use a strike or other non-violent
method in the quest for self-rule, the FLN murders police officers and bombs
civilians. They know that the French will react with violence against the
Casbah. The FLN sacrifices innocent Algerians, as well as its own members, for
the sake of self-rule. This is a top down strategy, where self-rule begins with
a select few, rather than each individual. Though the goal is to spread the
idea of self-rule to the Algerian people, the loss of a few Algerians is
considered insignificant, and even a necessary inspiration. Perhaps it comes
from the pre French culture in Algeria, or more sense of desperation, but the
FLN does not value human life, even the life of its own people in the same way
Gandhi values the lives of the British and Indians.
In addition the FLN has ambitions
to stay in power once Algeria is free, as shown when the FLN leaders discuss
life after the French. This goes against Gandhi’s view of self-rule. Only if
the people of Algeria want to be under the rule of the FLN, and only if the FLN
acts in the interests of Algerians should they continue to hold power in
Algeria once the French are gone. This reminds me of a common theme in
revolutions, where one unwanted system is merely replaced by another.
Questions: How can we justify the FLN’s sacrifice of innocent Algerians to rile up the rest of the population?
What makes the
situation in Algeria different such that Gandhi’s philosophy doesn’t apply? Or,
should the Algerians have used non-violence?