Gandhi's Trial
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Nov 10, 2003 3:59 pm
Subject: Gandhi's trial
I've been wondering if there's something wrong
with the Yahoo! mail server today, because my mails take hours
getting through, and the volume of messages is below normal.
So this is a test mail of sorts, while I take the opportunity
to get into another subject here that is linked to.... well,
what can we call it... esoteric anarchosophy perhaps? It's about
the relationship between politics and philosophy. Mahatma Gandhi
was a political activist who succeeded in ending British rule
in India, so he must be said to have had power. But what kind
of power was that? It was not power in the sense of seeking control
of others, but in the sense of simply being an autonomous human
being in the full sense of the word.
Rudolf Steiner was evidently an admirer of
Gandhi, and on October 16, 1923, in the evening, he held a lecture
for the teachers of the Waldorf School in Stuttgart entitled
"A Comprehensive Knowledge of Man as the Source of Imagination
in the Teacher." (from Erziehung und Unterricht aus Menschenerkenntnis,
GA 302a). The topic he brings up is something that we may very
well call the subtext of history, and he says that the teacher
should enable the students to discover what is happening beneath
the surface of events in addition to the obvious. In order to
illustrate this, he describes the trial against Mahatma Gandhi
in India:
I will give you an example
of what is needed in order to adopt the right attitude in our
civilization today. You have all heard of Mahatma Gandhi who,
since the war, or really since 1914, has set a movement going
for the liberation of India from English rule. Gandhi's activities
began first in South Africa with the aim of helping the Indians
who were living there under appalling conditions and for whose
emancipation he did a great deal before 1914. Then he went to
India itself and instituted a movement for liberation in the
life there. I shall speak today only of what took place when
the final verdict was passed on Mahatma Gandhi and omit the court
proceedings leading up to it. I would like to speak only of the
last act in the drama, as it were, between him and his judge.
Gandhi had been accused of stirring up the Indian people against
British rule in order to make India independent. Being a lawyer,
he conducted his own defense and had not the slightest doubt
that he would have to be condemned. In his speech - I cannot
quote the exact words - he spoke more or less to the following
effect: 'My Lords, I beg of you to condemn me in accordance with
the full strength of the law. I am perfectly aware that in the
eyes of British law in India my crime is the gravest one imaginable.
I do not plead any mitigating circumstances; I beg of you to
condemn me with the full strength of the law. I affirm, moreover,
that my condemnation is required not only in obedience to the
principles of outer justice but to the principles of expediency
of the British Government. For if I were to be aquitted I should
feel it incumbent upon me to continue to propagate the movement,
and millions of Indians would join it. My aquittal would lead
to results that I regard as my duty.'
The contents of this speech
are very characteristic of that which lives and weaves in our
time. Gandhi says that he must of necessity be condemned and
declares that it is his duty to continue the activity for which
he is to be condemned. The judge replied, 'Mahatma Gandhi, you
have rendered my task of sentencing you immeasurably easier,
because you have made it clear that I must of necessity condemn
you. It is obvious that you have transgressed against British
law, but you and all those present here will realize how hard
it will be for me to sentence you. It is clear that a large portion
of the Indian people looks upon you as a saint, as one who has
taken up his task in obedience to the highest duties devolving
upon humanity. The judgement I shall pass on you will be looked
upon by the majority of the Indian people as the condemnation
of a human being who has devoted himself to the highest service
of humanity. Clearly, however, British law must in all severity
be put into effect against you. You would regard it as your duty,
if you were aquitted, to continue tomorrow what you were doing
yesterday. We on our side have to regard it as our most solemn
duty to make that impossible. I condemn you in the full consciousness
that my sentence will in turn be condemned by millions. I condemn
you while admiring your actions, but condemn you I must.' Gandhi's
sentence was six years of hard labor.
You could hardly find a more
striking example of what is characteristic of our times. We have
two levels of actuality before us. Below is the level of truth,
the level where the accused declares that if he is aquitted,
it will be his solemn duty to continue what he must define as
criminal in face of outer law. On the level of truth, also, we
have the judge's statement that he admires the one whom, out
of duty to his Government, he sentences to six years' hard labor.
Above, at the level of facts, you have what the accused in this
case, because he is a great soul, defined as a crime: the crime
that is his duty and that he would at once continue were he to
be aquitted. Whereas on the one level you have the admiration
of the judge for a great human being, on the other you have the
passing of judgement and its outer justification. You have truths
below, facts above, which have nothing to do with one another.
They touch on one another at only one point, at the point where
they confront each other in statement and counter-statement.
The British government in India concluded
that their power would be radically weakened if Gandhi should
serve his entire six year sentence, so he was released after
a few months. It wasn't only his enormous popular support the
authorities worried about; what made matters worse was that Gandhi
enjoyed prison life and looked forward to being arrested, so
he could find solitude to meditate and read and rest and gain
strength for future work. How do you punish a man who encourages
you to do so, and whose criminal, seditious revolutionary mission
is served by it?
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
..........................................................................................................................................
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Tue Nov 11, 2003 8:31 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Gandhi's trial
Tarjei wrote:
Steiner:
I will give you an example of what is needed
in order to adopt the right attitude in our civilization today.
You have all heard of Mahatma Gandhi who, since the war, or really
since 1914, has set a movement going for the liberation of India
from English rule. Gandhi's activities began first in
(snip)
All very reminiscent of Socrate's trial. See
the next issue of SCR, which will appear any moment now.
Frank
Frank Thomas Smith
http://SouthernCrossReview.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
November/December
2003
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
