abstract: He said, I believe it is a private decision that a woman must make for herself. Sounds a lot like, but the slave is the master's property and he has the right to a private decision to do with his property whatever he wants.

Skip Navigation

by Mark Hamilton

In February 2004, Ashland University hosted a symposium on nonviolence. It was sponsored by the Office of the Provost and the College of Arts and Sciences. The goal was to look for practical alternatives to violence. There were workshops on resolving family conflict nonviolently and nonviolent means of parental education. But the keynote speaker for the three day symposium was Arun Gandhi, the grandson of Mohatma Gandhi. Gandhi is an articulate distinguished man in his mid-fifties and the founder of the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence, headquartered at Christian Brothers University in Memphis. As a member of the College of Arts and Sciences and as someone interested in this philosophical issue of nonviolence and civil disobedience, I attended a two hour session with Arun Gandhi where he spoke for awhile and then entertained questions for almost an hour and a half.

Gandhi was sincere, succinct, and thoughtful in his answers. He answered questions about his parents and grandfather. He was asked whether his grandfather was influenced by Thoreau and he responded that when his grandfather was imprisoned he read Thoreau and was pleased to find the writings of a man who so agreed with him and confirmed his own thoughts. Responding to a question about the movie Gandhi, he said the movie captured the personality and philosophy of his grandfather, but was not historically accurate. He intelligently spoke of the Caste System in India and how it creates a sense of violence toward the economically deprived. And regarding the issue of religion, he acknowledged his own Hindu beliefs and encouraged people to read all the "Holy" Books and select the truths found in them. He applied to religion the old traditional story that his grandfather would tell about the blind men who come upon the elephant and one describes it as a rope (because he grabbed the tail) and another as a tree (because he grabbed a leg) and another as a snake because he grabbed the trunk. This story implies that all religions have a bit of the truth but none of them have the whole exclusive truth. This is consistent with the ability of Hinduism to absorb other belief systems into it, thus if you merge Christianity and Hinduism the result is Hinduism. Because of the inclusive nature of Hinduism it can take in elements from every religion without losing its essential syncretistic nature. Christianity, on the other hand, is exclusive thus when it is merged with Hinduism its essence is lost because the uniqueness of the life, death, and resurrection of the one true Son of God is negated of its value.

Gandhi was asked whether force could ever be used and he surprised me by saying that if attacked then a person can defend the self or protect others. He stated that violence can be a last resort but insightfully noted that we often do not take seriously the idea of a last resort and often resort to violence before all other options are exhausted. He correctly noted that we live in a culture of violence in the West. He pointed out how violence in South Africa, India, and America is directed toward the weak or disenfranchised and that often it is related to economic exploitation toward those without power or wealth.

Finally it was my turn to ask this seemingly comfortable and confident but soft-spoken man my question. I raised my hand and stated, "Mr. Gandhi I appreciate your astute awareness that the victims of violence are usually those without power and are often the weakest members of society. I also recognize like you that we live in a culture of death and violence. But as I look around me I see the most blatant violence as acts of violence against the unborn. Could you please tell me your thoughts on abortion and how this action fits into this whole culture of death and violence?"

This was not a politically correct question and you could hear a pin drop among the couple hundred people present. He replied, "Abortion is certainly violent." My hopes began to arise. Maybe he does get it. Maybe there is hope. Instead then he said, "We have so many problems, we must solve the problems of those who are alive and kicking." Quickly I interjected, "They are certainly alive and kicking!" I knew he meant that we have enough problems among those already born to be concerned for those not yet born. Then he continued, "I believe it is a private decision that a woman must make for herself." He was obviously not comfortable with the question and then as quickly as we broached the topic, we quickly abandoned it and he moved on to answer other questions.

Oh how I wanted to scream, cry or argue back but it was not appropriate to do so. I wanted to say, "You hypocrite! What if a person says, but the slave is the master's property and he has the right to a private decision to do with his property whatever he wants." Or to say "isn't abortion the most aggressive form of violent parenting?" Or "how is your selectivity about the value of any individual life different from those selectively suppressing the untouchables in India, practicing apartheid in Africa, or executing Jews as non-persons in Germany?" I will pray that God changes the heart of this man to understand the greatness and uniqueness of Jesus, and that God will open his heart to see the horrid violence and injustice being done to the unborn humans in our very midst. Jesus understood this inconsistency when he said quoting from Isaiah in Matthew 13:13, 16 "while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand... But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear."

back to top