Is Hatred Essential for Nationalism?

Most of the nationalisms in Asia and Africa were anti-colonial in spirit and thus instinctively inspired by hatred for the colonizers. It was not easy to be a nationalist and still be free of loathing for the foreigners. Mahatma Gandhi challenged this widely accepted narrative. He asked Indians ‘to distinguish between evil and the evil-doer’. Gandhi was clear about the distinctive features of nationalism and thus emphasized that ‘It is not nationalism that is evil, it is the narrowness, selfishness, exclusiveness which is the bane of modern nations which is evil.’ The most distinctive feature of Gandhi’s philosophy was the complete lack of hatred, even his nationalism did not need an enemy. He was hated by some of his own countrymen for the love and accommodation he showed towards the Muslims, even in the midst of sectarian violence following the Partition. The following speech of Mahatma Gandhi put this idea aptly:

***

…Let me put it in another way—not necessarily that you should love the tiger, but love is an active force and the subject of this evening is—Is it necessary to hate the tiger? Is hatred essential for nationalism? You may not love, but must you also hate? The answer, as I have said before, in the minds of many people is undoubtedly that you must hate. Some, I know, consider it their duty to hate the tiger and they cite instances from modern constitutions, they cite the late disastrous War in Europe, they cite wars of which they have learnt in history; they cite also the law, and they say society hangs on the gallows those who are guilty of murder. Is not that a sign of hatred? There certainly is no love. Would not one love one’s father, would not one love one’s dearest ones, even if they might err? [Would one wish them] to be hanged on the gallows? One would pray for their reformation but not for their punishment, and yet, it is said, perhaps with a great deal of justification, that society will break into pieces if under the law of sanction punishment was withdrawn, abolished or suspended. With those illustrations before them, the young men rush to the conclusion that those who consider that hatred is not essential for nationalism are in the wrong. I do not blame them. They have to be pitied; they command my sympathy, but I have not a shadow of doubt in my mind that they are labouring under the grossest delusion; and so long as they retain that attitude, so long as a large body of men and women retain that attitude the progress of this country, the progress of the world is retarded. It does not matter to me that all those illustrations that I have placed before you can be cited in order to justify their conduct.

The world is weary of it. We see the fatigue overcoming the Western nations. We see that this song of hate has not benefited humanity. Let it be the privilege of India to turn a new leaf and set a lesson to the world. Is it necessary that three hundred millions of people should hate one hundred thousand Englishmen? That is the concrete term to which I can reduce this evening’s subject. In my humble opinion it is derogatory to the dignity of mankind, it is derogatory to the dignity of India to entertain for one single moment hatred towards Englishmen. That does not mean that you are to be blind to the excesses that English rulers have been found to commit in India. I have drawn this particular distinction between the evil and the evil-doer. Hate the evil but not the evil-doer. We ourselves, every one of us, are full of evil. And we want the world to be patient with us, to be forgiving, to be gentle with us. I would like the same thing to be meted out to the Englishmen. Heaven knows no one in India perhaps can claim better than myself to have spoken as fiercely and as fearlessly of the many misdeeds of English rulers and the corrupt nature of the system under which we are governed. My freedom from hatred—I would even go so far as to claim for myself individually—my love of those who consider themselves to be my enemies, does not make me blind to their faults. That is no love which is extended simply because of the possession of some virtues fancied or real in the beloved. If I am true to myself, if I am true to mankind, if I am true to humanity, I must understand all the faults that human flesh is heir to. I must understand the weaknesses of my opponents, the vices of my opponents and, yet, in spite of these vices, not hate but even love them. It is by itself a force. Brute force has been handed down to us from generation to generation. We have used it and we have found what it has done for Europe and what it has done for the world. The glamour of European civilization does not dazzle us. Scratch beneath the surface and you will find there very little to choose.

Do not for one moment consider that I condemn all that is Western. For the time being I am dealing with the predominant character of modern civilization, do not call it Western civilization, and the predominant character of modern civilization is the exploitation of the weaker races of the earth. The predominant character of modern civilization is to dethrone God and enthrone Materialism. I have not hesitated to use the word ‘Satan’. I have not hesitated to call this system of Government under which we are labouring ‘Satanic’. And I withdraw not one word from it. But, however, I shall not deal with it this evening. If I begin to devise means of punishing the evil-doer, my business is to love them and by patient and gentle handling to convert them. Non-co-operation or satyagraha, therefore, is not a hymn of hate. I know that many who call themselves satyagrahis or non-cooperators do not deserve to bear that name. They have done a violence to their own creed. They were not real representatives of this principle. Real non-co-operation is non-co-operation with evil and not with the evil-doer. Sometimes it is difficult, I know, to distinguish between evil and evil-doer. But how are you to non- co-operate with the evil and not with the evil-doer? I do not want to go into the whole of the intricate’ doctrine. I can simply comment on what is going on during these 5 or 6 years. If we understand the secret of this doctrine and the beautiful consistency between hating evil and not hating evil-doers, I have said that all that we need today is to extend the law that we apply in our domestic relations to the political field, and, therefore, to the relations between the rulers and the ruled and you will find the true solution. What does a father do to a son who is inclined to do evil and become corrupted? He does not punish him nor does he encourage him, but tries to correct him.

Your non-co-operation is intended not to encourage evil. That is the meaning. One of the greatest writers has said that if the world ceases to encourage evil, evil will die of inanition. If we simply find out for ourselves to what extent we are responsible for the evil that exists in society today, we will soon see that evil will soon be gone from society. But we tolerate it under a false sense of love. I am not talking of the blind love that dotes on an erring son and pats him on the back while he errs, nor am I speaking of the son who, under a false sense of loyalty to his father, tolerates evil in his father. I am not talking of that. I am talking of the love that discriminates, that is intelligent, that is not blind to a single fault. That is the love of reform, and the moment we have seized the secret, that very moment the evil goes out of sight.

I talk of the relations between the two races. Think of the many evils from which we are suffering today in Hindu society. Let alone Mussalmans, let alone Christians, Parsis and others. The majority of us are Hindus. How should we deal with the evil that is rampant in Hinduism? Shall we hate those who consider untouchability part and parcel of Hindu religion and quote scriptures in favour of untouchability or shall we remove untouchability by our persistent conduct? The secret, then, is suffering, not to subject the evil-doers to suffering, but to take the suffering upon our own shoulders. If we reform Hinduism of the many abuses that have crept into it, we shall only do so by taking the instance of Vaikom. It comes to me naturally because it is through praise that you see the finished example. I know every one of the brave young men. I think I know every one of them who are working in Vaikom under terrible difficulties. They have undergone suffering which I cannot possibly describe here in the few moments, but I dare give this testimony to you that these young men have not erred by a hair’s breadth. I mean the young men of Vaikom. I don’t say individuals have not erred, but they have kept their record absolutely clean. The result is that they have not yet got rid of the whole of abuses, but I have not a shadow of doubt in my mind that in Travancore today untouchability has lost its foothold, it is fast dying simply because of the determination of a handful of youth who plunged themselves down into the midst of Vaikom and invited suffering on their own shoulders. That is really the secret. In my humble opinion hatred is not essential for nationalism. Race hatred will kill the real national spirit. Let us understand what nationalism is. We want freedom for our country. We do not want sufferings for other countries: we do not want the exploitation of other countries; we do not want the degradation of other countries. For my part I don’t want the freedom of India if it means the disappearance of Englishmen, if it means the extinction of Englishmen. I want the freedom of my country so that other countries may learn something from this free country of mine. I want freedom of my country so that the resources of my country might be utilized for the benefit of mankind just as the cult of patriotism teaches us today that the individual has to die for the family, the family has to die for the village, the village for the district, the district for the Province and the Provinces for the whole nation, and when we indulge in provincialism I as a Gujarati say, Gujarat first, Bengal and the rest of Provinces next. There is no nationalism in it. On the contrary if I live in Gujarat and prepare Gujarat, I should prepare Gujarat so that the vast resources of Gujarat might be placed at the disposal of Bengal, nay, of the whole of India, that Gujarat may die for the whole of India. My love, therefore, of nationalism, or my idea of nationalism is that my country may become free—free that if need be the whole of the country may die—so that the human race may live. There is no room here for race hatred. Let that be our nationalism.

***

Source: Mahatma Gandhi's speech at Meccano Club, Calcutta, 28 August 1925.