Examining the Russo-Ukrainian Conflict through Gandhi’s Philosophy
By Karl Exala
.jpeg)
It is not a strange matter to consider that the Russian president Vladimir Putin’s approach towards the Russo-Ukrainian conflict would be in terms of realpolitik, i.e., the practical approach to political policies in light of actual circumstances, resources, and factors, instead of an emphasis in moral or ideological premises. Putin points to the following justifications behind the invasion: (1) Russia opposes Ukrainian NATO membership, since for Putin, this is a threat to Russian security and national interest; (2) Russia is putting forward the idea of eliminating Nazism in Ukraine. But a valid question is raised: are these reasons just? Why opt for war and not peace? Naïve as these questions may sound, they hold a certain level of validity. One reason is that the reality of the past World Wars has taught us that war teaches us that people will die in the process of obtaining a particular end, e.g., lasting peace. The end is agreed by all to be of utmost importance. But what of the means?
Let us turn to the philosophical thought of the Indian lawyer and political ethicist Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi who championed the ideals of peace and non-violence and criticized the atrocities of war and violence.
Gandhi’s philosophical thought
As an idealist, Gandhi believed and adhered to the Indian dictum “truth alone prevails,” and for him, truth is God and God is truth (Mishra 2012, 69). This is to say that God as Truth is understood as the ideal of human morality – that our deeds and actions must be directed towards truth. His philosophy is a rejection of the Western paradigm of realpolitik. He adhered to the primacy of a moral basis in every form of action.
A central element of his philosophical thought are two related concepts: satyagraha and ahimsa. Satyagraha means “adherence to truth” (Mishra 2012, 65). It maintains that in all aspects of human actions and affairs, truth is primary basis. In the face of injustice and oppression, truth remains but it is “untruth” that is being followed by the tyrant and oppressor. As a doer of “untruth,” the evil-doer is rejecting human value and dignity. For Gandhi, the way to combat “untruth” is a commitment to truth via ahimsa or non-violence. But this is not to be understood as mere acceptance of the status quo, cowardice, or even a form of defeatist passivity. Understanding Gandhi’s advocacy and adherence to non-violence as solely in terms of weakness and defeatism is to misinterpret it as an end instead of a means to truth. For Gandhi, non-violence is the way to show the “untruth” of the tyrant and oppressor. It is a demonstration of a commitment to truth, a commitment that is indicated by humility and courage to face the attempts of tyranny to seize control and subjugate people. Knowing ahimsa implies that in all courses of action against injustice and oppression, violence is not the first on one’s list. At best, it should not even be found in the last.
Following Gandhi’s line of thought, we come to understand that understanding and pursuing the root cause of war is to examine the moral dimension of the problem. Although war is confronted as an effect of political tensions, those who wage war assume a moral basis – that war is justified. This, for Gandhi, is the root of the problem. War means moving away from Truth, that is, the truth of mankind’s compassion, love, humility, and brotherhood. Making sense of Gandhi’s moral and political philosophy in light of the current state of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, we will come to understand that Russia’s invasion is unjustified. Even if Putin would invoke the just war theory to justify his actions, he would fail, for even the theory itself emphasizes that the waging of war must include the deliberation of the avoidance of violent force.
What can the ordinary individual do?
Much of the attention is focused on the abstract level of the circumstances of “states” and “nations.” This, of course, is not wrong. It is important to consider the state of nations and the relations between nations amidst this conflict. But a particular question is valid at this point: what can the ordinary individual do? Given that the decisions are made within the confines of institutional deliberations wherein the people who hold positions of power are endowed with the responsibility to determine the welfare of their citizens, what is the civilian’s place in today’s state of affairs?
It would seem that the commonplace perception and description of the ordinary individual is that he is powerless unless he holds a position of authority. Gandhi would disagree. For Gandhi, every one of us is capable of exercising and demonstrating the force of truth through action. This is to say that each and every one of us – not only the ordinary Russian, Ukrainian, or Westerner – has the capacity for compassion and the refusal to do harm towards others.
The current state of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict reveals to us the lapses of not only Russia but also the West, whether directly or indirectly. The conclusion of this war remains to be seen. We also do not know if conflicts of today and of the yesteryears will repeat tomorrow and the years after. But one thing is clear: war is not the way. If we are to commit ourselves into the path towards peace, we should begin with our relationship and commitment to truth.
Everyone desires peace, but history has shown that perhaps not everyone is prepared to commit oneself to the requirements prior its achievement. Gandhi has shown us a possible way towards it. Whether or not we are ready is a question that only we can ask ourselves and answer for ourselves and for the sake of others.
