Gandhi's Cocept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha Understood As (Authentic) Forgiveness

SAN PABLO MAJOR SEMINARY
School of Philosophy 1
Introduction
Throughout the course of man’s life, man, as someone who lives with his fellow
man and someone who in many ways interacts with others, is hurt or would feel hurt by
others many times, physically and/or emotionally. Most of the times, man is hurt by
others because of the evil act(s), wrong-doings or mistreatment done by the other person,
which on the other hand, is caused by the “imperfection of man”, ones lack of wisdom
and understanding which together with his free will, made him, the offender or wrong-
doer, choose to do evil rather than to do what is good, (Ortega, 2016). Hence, man, with
his imperfection, other than being hurt by others, is also culpable of hurting others as
well through his rough decisions, his words, and/or his actions, whether it is his intention
or not, or whether he’s aware of it or not, for with his “imperfection” there are also times
that he might have chosen to do what is evil than to do what is good, though sometimes
even when someone has chosen to do good, he might still hurt others for it might not
appear to others as good, or that it might not be good for others considering their belief,
culture, religion, or practice.
Man, being mistreated and so being hurt reacts to it, and this is because he
receives stimulus. The stimulus in this case would be the evil act done against him. With
this, psychology would tell that when an organism receives stimulus, the organism reacts
or responds to the stimulus which results to a change of behavior of the organism, and
the [kind of] change of behavior depends on the [kind of] stimulus which is received by
the organism, (Mamaat, 2017). And so with this case then, when man is hurt, there is
also a change in behavior that takes place and that there is also a difference in the [kind
of] change of behavior corresponding to the [kind of] evil action which was done against
him. Other than the [kind of] evil action done against someone that affects the kind of
change of behavior of man, there are also some other factors that affects the kind of
response of a man like, the gravity of the evil act(s) done against him, his relation to the
one who hurt him, and/or the disposition of the man who is hurt.
The most common response of a person when he is hurt is anger, for man, being
hurt, implies that he feels pain, and so since he feels pain, he consequently feels anger.
Thus, it is the pain that man feels that makes him feel anger, as Harry Mills, Ph.D. (2015)
wrote in his article, Psychology of Anger;
“Anger is a natural and mostly automatic response to pain of one form

or another (physical or emotional). Anger can occur when people
don't feel well, feel rejected, feel threatened, or experience some loss.”
then, he explained further that;
“The type of pain does not matter; the important thing is that the pain
experienced is unpleasant. Because anger never occurs in isolation but
rather is necessarily preceded by pain feelings, it is often characterized
as a ''secondhand'' emotion.”
Anger is a natural response of man when he is hurt, and it is also good for man
to feel anger for through anger one can know that something is wrong and that it can
also remind others that something is wrong. Though anger is a natural response of a man
who is hurt and even good for a man to feel it, in the same way, often times it can be
bad, especially when it is anger that conquers the emotion of a man who is or was hurt.
Anger conquering man's emotion leads him to hate, not only the evil act done
against him but also the person who did it [who hurt him], (Flores, 2016). And so, when
anger conquers man's emotion, it would often times lead him to do evil, most especially
against the person who hurt him. The most common thing that man does when he is hurt
and anger already conquers his emotion, is that he takes revenge for what has been done
against him, for by revenge, he feels that the offender is being punished and that what
has been done against him is justified. In this case, man usually do the same thing [evil
action done to him], against the person, however, there are also people who rather than
doing the same thing which was done against them would double the gravity of their
revenge, as an Ilokano would sometimes say, “Nakarkaro [a] ti bales” [revenge should
be more extreme]. Another thing that man does when his emotion is conquered by anger
is that he expresses it through language, by arguing against the person who hurt him,
uttering things that might hurt the person who hurt him, cursing or wishing the person
who hurt him “bad luck” [ill], and also by gossiping against the person who hated or
hurt him to destroy the wrong-doers image to other persons.
But other than these violent actions that man does when his emotion is conquered
by anger, man sometimes just chooses to be silent, to avoid the person who hurt him or
avoid to talk and see the one who hurt him, instead of expressing his anger by violent
actions or by retaliating. Most people do this in order for them not to inflict harm against
the person who hurt them or so that they may not do something evil. But nonetheless,
they still have the feeling of anger or hate against the person who hurt them.
In short, when man's emotion is conquered by anger, he tends to hate the person
who hurt him, and that he returns evil for the evil done against him. The man who is/was
hurt tends to return evil for what is evil, for this seems to be a universal law of nature,
as Rev. C.C. Vanarsdalen (1835) asserts in his article “The Philosophy of Forgiveness”.
And as the Tagalog proverb would state that, “Kung ano ang yong itinanim ay siya rin
ang iyong aanihin” [what you sow is what you reap], and so in the case of a man being
hurt, since he is/was hurt the tendency would be for him to return the hurt.
But considering the case that, through the course of man's life, man is hurt by
others and that he also has hurt others, how does man able to live and have a good
relationship with others and even love others, despite the undeniable reality of being
hurt by others and hurting others, which on the other hand can lead to hatred? One
possible answer to this question would be, “man is able to live and have a good
relationship with others and even love them, for that “others” never hurt him or that he
never hurt them”. Man to never have been hurt by someone or never have hurt someone
is possible, but is a rare case, for often times even this “others” that man lives with and
whom he loves, have, in many ways, hurt him and/or that he has hurt them. Then, how
does man able to live and have a good relationship with others and even love them who
at one time have hurt him and/or whom at one time he has hurt? This becomes possible
for despite the possibility of returning the hurt to the one who hurt someone, man
chooses not to return the hurt that others inflicted him, and that, he forgives the one who
hurt him.
Indeed, man being able to live and have a good relationship with others and even
love them, who have hurt him and whom he has hurt, is a proof that “man is capable of
forgiving”, and that “forgiveness is a present reality in the world”, as Flores (2016)
wrote in his junior thesis entitled “The Capacity to Forgive”. For some, to forgive is
easy especially when the gravity of the [evil] act done against them is not that severe,
when they love [so much] the person who hurt them, and/or when the person who hurt
them asks for forgiveness and that they see that the person really is sorry for what he
has done, though there are others who despite being asked forgiveness does not forgive.
But many find “to forgive” to be difficult especially when the [evil] act done against
them have caused them so much pain like a loss of one's life, betrayal, and/or something
that affects the entire life of one person. Though many would find it difficult to forgive,
especially with these circumstances, it is still possible for one to forgive considering
these circumstances, as some people were able to do so.
To name a few of these people, who despite of the severe gravity of what was
done against them were able to forgive the one who did it to them, are Saint Pope John
Paul II who forgave, prayed, and even asked for the release of Mehmet Ali Ağca from
prison, who shot him four times on the thirteenth of May of the year 1981 in St. Peter's
Square which caused him to suffer from a severe blood loss and to nearly die, (Castillo,
2014). Another exemplary of “extraordinary” forgiveness is Steven McDonald, a young
police officer who forgave and even befriended Shavod Jones, who shot him three times
as he questioned them [Jones and his two other companions] for they [McDonald and
his supervisor] suspected them of stealing bicycles, which [the incident] left him
paralyzed and in need of a respirator to breathe., (Castillo, 2014). Another person who
forgave what seems to be “unforgivable” is Anthony Colon, who forgave and the three
men who brutally murdered his brother Wilfredo. One of these killers, in particular, is
Michael Rowe who became Anthony's good friend after forgiving them. Though the
tragedy left him bitter and angry at first, as years went on, he was able to forgive the
killers, (Castillo, 2014). And of course, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi whom people
famously know and call as Mahatma Gandhi, the man who led the independence of the
Indians from the British governance by living his principle of non-violence, through his
personal practice of love and forgiveness. Hence, through living his principle, he
forgave the British government for oppressing the Indians, including him since he is
also an Indian. With these people that was mentioned and even those people which was
not mentioned here, who forgave the person who hurt them, despite the gravity of [evil]
act done against, one may conclude that man can forgive anyone despite the gravity of
the [evil] act done against him, though it may be hard as most people find it and
sometimes it even takes time before one is able to forgive.
Forgiveness is really possible in any circumstances, even though how severe the
gravity of an evil action done against a man is, but hard as many people find it to do.
One who forgives is admired by many people for he was able to do something that most
people believes to be something hard to do. The man who forgives as well is seen as
someone who is good for instead of returning evil for the evil done against him, he
chooses to return good for what is evil. And so, because of these many people attempts
as well to forgive the persons who have hurt them and show and tell others that they
have forgiven the person who hurt them, but ending up to not really forgive the person
who hurt them instead they just want to appear good to others and forgive just for the
sake of showing others that they are forgiving, as they are ought to do and as others
thinks and encourages them to do [to forgive].

Other than forgiveness as something that makes one person to be good especially
to the eyes of others, forgiveness has also in many ways good benefits to the person as
psychologists would say that, “forgiving allows man to move forward with his life and
that when one forgives it reduces rates of anxiety and depression, contributes to better
sleep, and lowers blood pressure and cholesterol as studies have shown”, (DBU “Dallas
Baptist University” Counseling Center, 2014). Hence, man really tries hard to forgive
someone who has hurt him, but often times he found it difficult and not able to do it,
after doing many things to forgive the person. And so with this, there is a dilemma of
man on how is it really to forgive someone.
As have been mentioned earlier, Gandhi is one of the persons who forgave what
most people think to be “unforgivable” [hard to be forgiven], because of what he/they
have done, as he forgave the British government or empire, who oppressed them, the
Indians. Through living his principle(s) of “Ahimsa”, which literally translated as “non-
violence”, and “Satyagraha”, which literally means "holding on to truth and it means,
therefore, Truth-force", (Rodriguez, 1989), he in a way forgave the British
[government]. Though, one usually sees this principle(s) of Gandhi as something that
he only used to lead the independence of the Indians from the oppressive governance of
the British colony, what people usually fail to see is that through this principle(s),
Gandhi was able also to forgive the British and help them change to become better which
lead them [the British] to stop their oppressive governance and give the independence
which the Indians are longing for. In a way, Gandhi forgave the British oppressors since
he did not do anything [evil] against the British oppressors, which [doing evil against
the British] can be called as revenge for that matter, for even though he himself was also
subjected to being oppress by the British, he did not do anything bad against the British.
Gandhi’s principle of Ahimsa and Satyagraha as his tool do such act, is [in a
way] a formula for his act of forgiveness for the British. And so, with this supposition,
one may revisit his principle[s], which he did not only lived but also taught them to
others, to be able to learn how to forgive and also to have a better understanding of
forgiveness and of authentic forgiveness [ forgiveness that is genuine]. And so in this
paper, the researcher would try to present and explain how this principle(s) or concept(s)
of Gandhi, Ahimsa and Satyagraha, can be understood as [authentic] forgiveness.
On this paper, the researcher, would then try to answer the question, “Why is
Gandhi's concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha understood as [authentic] forgiveness?”
and for the researcher to arrive at an answer of the said question he will also answer
these questions;
a. What is Gandhi's concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha?
b. What is the relation Gandhi’s concept[s] of Ahimsa and Satyagraha to
forgiveness?
c. How is Gandhi's concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha understood as [authentic]
forgiveness?
Considering these questions that the researcher will answer on this paper, the researcher
then arrives to a framework of his study for the reader to have an overview of what the
researcher will do, as shown in the figure:

Ahimsa
Satyagraha
Forgiveness
Ahimsa
Satyagraha
as
[Authentic]
Forgiveness
Hence, in this paper, the researcher would first present and discuss Gandhi's concept(s)
of Ahimsa and Satyagraha, then discuss forgiveness and relate it to Gandhi’s concept[s]
of Ahimsa and Satyagraha, and after doing so, he then formulates an understanding of
Gandhi's concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha related to forgiveness, as [authentic]
forgiveness.
“Forgiveness is indeed a present reality in the world.”, (Flores, 2016). It is a
phenomenon that many people think and try to perform but fails to do, for they lack
knowledge and understanding on how to truly forgive and/or what an authentic
forgiveness really is, and because of this, one is challenged to study about forgiveness,
hoping that after he does, he will be able to know how to truly forgive. Hence this paper,
as the researcher presents Gandhi's concept(s) of Ahimsa and Satyagraha understood as
[authentic] forgiveness, is a work to attempt to help a man with his endeavor of knowing
how to truly forgive.

“The discussion on forgiveness before the dawn of analytic philosophy was
heavily theological. It was only at the beginning of the 20th century that philosophical
speculations on forgiveness started”, (Flores, 2016). There were prior philosophical
studies on forgiveness like the works of Ricoeur, Griswold, and Butler, and in the history
of San Pablo Seminary there were also some seminarians who have written something
on forgiveness like recently, Niño Randy Flores who wrote the junior thesis entitled
“The Capacity to Forgive”, which talks about forgiveness in the light of Ricoeur's idea
of forgiveness. Most of these [philosophical] studies on forgiveness are rooted on
western philosophy, hence, this paper is also an attempt to study forgiveness in an
eastern philosophy context, though in many ways the researcher has also used concepts
of western philosophy to explain his ideas.
Though the researcher discussed Gandhi's concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha,
the focus of his thesis is not Gandhi’s concepts of Ahimsa and Satyagraha, rather, the
focus is on how this concept[s] of Gandhi is related to forgiveness, and on how this
concept[s] of Gandhi is to be understood as [authentic] forgiveness, and so he does not
go beyond the practice and implications of this principle[s]. Hence, though the
researcher has discussed Gandhi’s concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha, and forgiveness,
the focus of the paper is Gandhi’s concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha understood as
[authentic] forgiveness, not in the practice of Gandhi’s concept[s] of Ahimsa and
Satyagraha, and forgiveness separately from Gandhi’s concepts[s] of Ahimsa and
Satyagraha.
The researcher did not only rely also on the thoughts of the authors of the books
and articles he has read, but he also interpreted these thoughts of these authors using his
own understanding. Thus, this paper is consisting of not only thoughts of certain authors,
psychologists and philosophers but also the analysis, understanding, and reflection of
the researcher.
It is as well important to know that the researcher is indebted to several writers,
who by their works, was able to help him in the realization of this paper. These works
of writers are the ones which clarify the subject matter(s) of this paper- forgiveness and
Gandhi's concept(s) of Ahimsa and Satyagraha, and serve as the point of reference of
the study; thus, the researcher has taken into account. These works are;
Readings from Gandhi, a book of compilation of Gandhi's life and thoughts as
told in his own words, which were compiled and edited by Krishna Kripalani and
Mahendra Meghani. This book contributed especially to the understanding of Gandhi's
concept of Ahimsa
An Analysis of Mahatma Gandhi's Concept of Satyagraha; The Philosophy of
Non-violence, a junior thesis written by Joselito Lazaro Rodrigez, which is mainly
focused on the analysis of Gandhi's concept of Satyagraha. Though it was mainly
focused in Satyagraha, it was still beneficial on understanding not only Gandhi's concept
of Satyagraha but also of Ahimsa as the writer was able to briefly but effectively discuss
them.
Dr. Hope K. Fitz’s journal entitled Ahimsa: A Way of Life; Path to Peace, which
is part of Gandhi Lecture Series, which is founded by the University of Masssachusetts

Dartmouth Center of Indic Studies. This journal was essential on the deeper
understanding of Ahimsa, most especially its’s origins and development.
“The Capacity to Forgive”, a junior thesis was written by Niño Randy Flores,
which talks about Ricoeur's idea of forgiveness. It was important especially on having a
better understanding of forgiveness.
These are only some of the works that the researcher has look on to as he was in the
course of writing this paper, other works that the researcher used are; junior theses of
San Pablo Seminary [seminarians], some parts or sections of books related to the topic,
articles from the internet, most especially from the websites “Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy”, “Jstor” and “Shodhganga”, and other refereed journals, essays, and
commentaries from the internet which talks about forgiveness, Gandhi's concept(s) of
Ahimsa and Satyagraha, anger and other related topics, since the available
sources/references from the seminary library is limited.

Methodology
The research work is made possible mainly through library research. Articles,
commentaries, journals, periodicals, dissertations which are mainly from the internet,
and notes on lectures which the researcher have attended to, are also included as
materials for the study as long as they were relevant to the study. Though it is mainly
library research that the researcher has employed in this research, the researcher has also
asked the opinion of several people about the topic, especially on forgiveness.
In writing this paper, the researcher utilized the expository method in order to
show and analyze Gandhi's concept(s) of Ahimsa and Satyagraha, and an understanding
of forgiveness. And after that, the researcher used a sort of comparative approach to be
able to relate Gandhi’s concept(s) of Ahimsa and Satyagraha to forgiveness and to
answer how this concept[s] of Gandhi be understood as [authentic] forgiveness, since
Gandhi did not explicitly explain this principle(s) in the context of man forgiving
someone who has hurt him personally, rather more in a political context, however, it is
undeniably true that as he lived this principle(s), as one can read on his autobiography,
he was able to use this principle(s) to forgive some people who have hurt him
[personally].
Results and Discussion

A. Gandhi’s Concept (s) of Ahimsa and Satyagraha
“Truth and Non-Violence constitute the heart of Gandhi’s Philosophy”, (Mir and
Khan, 2017). Truth and non-violence are deeply related to Gandhi’s concept(s) of
Ahimsa and Satyagraha, as “ahimsa”, would [literally] mean, and is what Gandhi also
called as non-violence, while “satyagraha” would literally mean “holding on to truth”.
Hence one may also say that Ahimsa and Satyagraha constitute the heart of Gandhi’s
philosophy. Ahimsa and Satyagraha plays a great role in Gandhi’s life, most especially
in his pursuit of the liberation of his fellow Indians from the British colony. Gandhi is
believed to have lived his principle(s) or concept(s) of Ahimsa and Satyagraha, which
actually made him possible to live such holy life. Ahimsa and Satyagraha, as many
scholars of Gandhi would assert, are related to one another, and that they complement
one another in many ways. And so to know more about Ahimsa and Satyagraha, and to
know why these two concepts of Gandhi, are related and complementary, let us dissect
these concepts of Gandhi and analyze them.
1. Gandhi’s Concept of Ahimsa
Ahimsa is a term which means, and usually translated, as “non- violence”. Huong
(2016), in his research, wrote about the word derivation of ahimsa and he said that;
“literally, the word ahiṃsā is derived from the Sanskrit root hiṃs (to
strike, to injure or to hurt); hiṃsā is injury or harm. Ahiṃsā is the
opposite of hiṃsā by the combination of two parts of word: “a” +
“hiṃsā” (non + violence), which can be translated as “nonviolence or
“reverse of violence”. Thus, connoting “an absence of a desire to
injure another in thought, word, or deed,” ahiṃsā is “to cause no
injury, do no harm,” and is referred to as nonviolence, and it applies

to all living beings, according to many Indian religions”, (Chapter II,
p. 21)
Hence, ahimsa is [primarily] a negation of himsa which is violence, that is why it is also
translated as non-violence, however, later on one will see in the later part of this
discussion that ahimsa is more than simply as a negation himsa.
Ahimsa is definitely not an original doctrine of Gandhi as it has existed even before
he was born, for some say that the concept of ahiṃsā may be predated back to Aryan
culture (5000 B. C.), as well as, other says it emerges in the later stages of the Vedic
traditions (1500-900 B. C.) as a reaction against the practice of ritual sacrifices
sanctioned in the early Vedic texts”, Huong (2016, Chapter II, p. 31). Subsequent to this
fact that it was not Gandhi’s original doctrine, Gandhi’s concept of ahimsa is indeed
greatly influenced by the Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist tradition, as Dr. Hope K. Fitz (2007)
asserts, for primarily, “ahimsa is one of the cardinal virtues and an important tenet of
this major Indian religions like Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism”, Huong (2016,
Chapter II, p. 31). And so to have a better view and understanding of Gandhi’s concept
of ahimsa, it is only right to look at the origin and development of ahimsa in Hinduism,
Jainism and Buddhism respectively, with the primary knowledge of ahimsa as non-
violence.
1.1 Hinduism
“The origins of ahimsa are in the Vedic literature [which includes the early Vedic
writings and the Upanishads]. Although we do not encounter the term ahimsa until the
Chandogya Upanishad, in fact, there are passages in the Vedas which speak to both non-
harm and compassion,.”, Fitz (2007, p. 3). Ahimsa, though said to originate from the
Vedic literature, was not yet explicitly “existing” during the [early] Vedic times, for the
term itself has not yet been used, and that technically, it was only introduced during the
Chandogya Upanishad. But even if it was not yet introduced during the [early] Vedic
times as there is no evidence in the early Vedic literature that the “term” ahimsa was
used, there seems to be resemblance of this idea of “ahimsa” to the Vedic virtues and
goals of “honesty, friendliness, non-hatred, charity and friendliness to other humans and
no unnecessary harm to animals who posed no harm”, as Fitz (2007, p. 3) cited from
Ghosh (1989).
Moreover, the Atharva Veda, which is a Vedic literature, also shows that people then
value fearlessness, for the people were praying to Indra for fearlessness, as Fitz (2007,
p.3) cites from Ghosh’s book entitled “Ahimsa: Buddhist and Gandhian”. In this book
of Ghosh (1989), he linked fearlessness to ahimsa, and he said that “fearless persons do
not harbor ill feelings”, Fitz (2007, p. 3). Though Fitz (2007), does not totally agree with
Ghosh’s idea that fearless persons do not harbor ill feelings, she recognizes that fearless
people are more likely to be less arrogant compared to fearful persons, for the fearful
would tend to harm others out of [their] fear. And so with these conformities of Vedic
virtues and goals to that of the idea of ahimsa which is non-violence, one may already
conclude that even during the [early] Vedic times, this doctrine or principle, of ahimsa,
can already be traced, hence, it can be said that “ahimsa was sourced from this Vedic
virtues and goals”, Fitz (2007, p. 4).

Let us now proceed to when it really was introduced, the Upanishads’ period,
specifically during the Chandogya Upanishad, where it can be literally said that this
term, ahimsa, first occurred in the writings. “As an ethical principle of Hinduism, the
concept of ahiṃsa recognized the unity of humanity, and the Upanishads emphasized
positive love for humanity”, Huong (2016, p. 33).
“In one particular passage of this Upanishad, one finds some advice to
students given by Manu [the law giver of the Indian Tradition]. He, in
turn, is said to have received the advice from Prajapati [Lord of creatures;
creator, Lord of Becoming] and Prajapati is said to have been given the
advice from Brahma [Creator of the Universe; one of the Indian Trinity
(Brahma, Siva, and Vishnu)]”, Fitz (2007, p. 3).
The advice which these persons have received and relayed to others was “for the
students to practice ahimsa i.e. non-injury to all creatures except at holy places (where
animals are sacrificed)”, Ghosh (1989), as cited by Fitz (2007, p. 3). This passage from
the Chandogya Upanishad literature is where it is said that “ahimsa” was first
introduced, most especially to Hindus.
But other than this literature of Chandogya Upanishad that shows the references of
ahimsa, there are also other Upanishads [other periods of Upanishad] where references
of ahimsa is manifested. Ahimsa can also be related to Prasmupanishad’s description
of chastity (or purity), wherein “it is said that a man loses his foremost quality of chastity
as soon as he injures anyone by thought, word or deed”, Ghosh (1989), as quoted by
Fitz (2007, p. 4). Another Upanishad, where ahimsa can be said to have manifested, is
in the Taittirriya Upanishad, where “one finds description of a teacher who told his
students to follow truth, virtue, welfare and to practice blameless duty, etc. He also told
the students that when they are in doubt, they were to follow the Brahmanas who were
deemed competent to judge, devote to good deeds, not led by others, not harsh and lovers
of virtues”, Ghosh (1989, p. 41), as quoted by Fitz (2007, p. 4).
Evidences of the existence of the principle of ahimsa in Vedas and Upanishads can
really be seen in their literature and their values, but to better understand ahimsa in
Hinduism, let us take into account moral decisions about what was “himsa” [literally
translated today as “violence”] and what was ahimsa to them, then see the distinction of
the two. The distinction of ahimsa and himsa is primarily who or what one could kill,
Fitz (2007, p. 4). According to Ghosh (1989), “in the Puranas and Dharmasastras, only
unlawful killing or injury not prescribe in the scriptures is himsa”, Fitz (2007, p. 4), thus
killing, especially sacrificial killing was ahimsa, or non-violence. Moreover, there were
limitations to killings not prescribe, as “a king could order killing for the protection of
his people, however, in general he was not to kill the Brahmin [priest], refugees, and
women”, Ghosh (1989) as cited by Fitz (2007). One can see later on how this Hindu
idea of ahimsa differ to other ideas like that of the Jain’s and Buddhist’s, and how this
Hindu idea of ahimsa affected the Gandhi’s concept of Ahimsa.
Through years, ahimsa in Hinduism have developed, and “by the fifth to the second
century B.C.E., ahimsa was quite developed, at least, as it pertains to the roots and
importance of non-harm, as it can be seen in the great Hindu text entitled the Yoga
Sutra”, Fitz (2007, p. 5). Pantanjali, the author of the Yoga Sutra, understood the
importance of ahimsa in the quest of self-realization. He wisely realized that ahimsa, as
non-harm, non-injury, non-volence, and a vow not to harm underlies yama, i.e.,
restraints of: speech, not lying, not stealing, not-grasping or seeking to acquire more
than one needs and celibacy, which is also called as moral restraints. Moral restraints,
on the other hand is essential in many aspects like in performing yoga, hence ahimsa
underlying yama is essential in Yoga Sutra.
Definitely, ahimsa is a doctrine of Hinduism and that it is something that has already
rooted in the religion, as it can be traced as early as the Vedic period to the time when
the Yoga Sutra came out. And through years, the doctrine of ahimsa has developed in
Hinduism. This knowledge of the development of ahimsa in Hinduism, will later on be
important for one to better understand Gandhi’s concept of Ahimsa.
But the Hindu idea of ahimsa [solely] does not capture the totality of the Gandhian
understanding of ahimsa. Hence, we can never grasp Gandhi’s understanding of ahimsa
without looking at its Jain and Buddhist roots, and so let us move to Ahimsa’s Jain roots
and development.
1.2 Jainism
Chronologically, “ahimsa in Jainism have come even before the development of
ahimsa in the Yoga system of Pantanjali of Hinduism”, Kothari (2010), thus, ahimsa in
Jainism is older than the development of ahimsa in Yoga system of Pantanjali. Though
ahimsa in Jainism was prior to the ahimsa in Hinduism as it has developed in the Yoga
Sutra, the Jain’s concept of ahimsa was different from that of the Hindu’s, that it has
“leveled up” to an extreme one, as Kothari would assert that “[the cult of] ahimsa has
taken a new turn in Jainism and also takes its extreme form.”
Knowing that there is a difference of the Jain’s idea of ahimsa to that of Hindu’s
[and of Buddhist’s later on]and of why Kothari connotes ahimsa to have an extreme
form in Jainism, is same as knowing the development of ahimsa in Jainism, and so let
us go into it and see it’s difference from other concepts of ahimsa and of why it has
[gained] an extreme form.
“Jainism is an ancient religion of India that prescribes a path of nonviolence towards
all living beings...” Huong (2016, Chapter II, p. 34) cited Agarwal (2014). In this
passage we can see that in Jainism, non-violence [ahimsa] is applied towards all living
being, thus, one should not inflict harm or hurt any living being [in all cases], unlike in
Hinduism that permits killing of animals, which are considered to be sacrifice[s], and
even considers it as ahimsa. Moreover, “ahimsa as the center philosophy of Jainism”,
Huong (2016), is considered Brahman by Jainism, thus, ahimsa in Jainism is also viewed
as a pure, eternal and unchangeable law. Huong (2016) wrote;
“This eternal and unchangeable law is stated in the Jinavanga Maya

sūtra thus: “Everyone loves life. All the living beings do not like loss of
life; they love pity. Therefore, always keeping in mind “ahoy ātman”
(realizing the fact that all souls experience one and the same feeling of
distress or comfort), go forward to good will and mutual cooperation,
Kumar (2003)”, (Chapter II, p. 35)
Hence, ahimsa in Jainism is and should be applied to all living beings, so that, one should
not harm, hurt, and most especially kill any living being, since every living being shares
in the love for life, in other words every living being values life, and that they dislike or
hate the loss or destruction of life, instead they love pity, care, compassion, sympathy
and anything that will be good for [ones] life. And with this, we can say that the basis
of ahimsa in Jainism is the concept of equality [the commonality of the love for life and
hate for the destruction of it]. Pereira (1976) also said that “ahimsa [in Jainism] stems
from the fundamental doctrine of life as constituting the primary essence of all things”,
quoted by Agpalo (2008, p. 48). Thus, life is valued in Jainism, and so anything that has
life should not be harmed or killed for it is against valuing life.
Violence in all form, in Jainism, is against their morality, law and their right to live,
hence “it has been desired that a man should not only ascertain his own existence, but
also of other fellow beings”, Huong (2016, Chapter II, p. 35). And so, in Jainism, one
should strive not to hurt or harm any living being even unintentionally.
Indeed, ahimsa in Jainism is and should be applied to all living beings because of
their doctrine of life. This concept or view of ahimsa of the Jains is greatly seen in their
practices, as one may see this observance of ahimsa in Jainism, in the Jain distinction of
the lay people [householders] and the ascetic [mendicant].
The lay people upholds on the “small vows” to help them progress in their salvation,
Fitz (2007) termed it “small vows” to distinguish the vows of a lay person or
householder from that of a mendicant or ascetic. Fitz (2007) wrote;
“The first vow [of a lay person] is that of ahimsa. The lay person is neither
to harm anyone nor to wish harm to anyone. Animals are also never to be
harmed. They are not to be slaughtered for meat or sacrifice. Even plants
are not to be harmed except for that which is necessary. Obviously what
is most necessary is food.” (p. 6)
Therefore, a lay person must not harm any living being; man, animals, plants, all
creatures, even for sacrifice, for meat or for food or for other purposes, but of course
since it is necessary for man to take eat something in order to live, he can, in a way,
‘harm’ some plants since it is the only thing he can eat to live, with the condition that
they really are edible or that they really are intended to be eaten. This idea of non-
violence to all living beings might also in some way explain why most Indians are
vegetarian. Going back to the distinction of the lay person and the ascetic, the ascetic on
the other hand hold fast to the “great vows” [as Fitz (2007) calls them]. Like the lay, an
ascetic, with the “great vow”, considers ahimsa, thus he is not and should not as well
harm any living being, but the difference is that the scope of this non-violence to living
beings is far reaching, for “an ascetic must not try to harm any living being including
plants, even unintentionally” Fitz (2007, p. 6) quoted Shaw (2006). But one may ask the
question, “what and how then do they eat?”. With this dilemma, the lay person and
ascetic relation comes in, for the lay persons make possible the life of the ascetics, hence,
they are the once who prepare food for the ascetic or the mendicant and the mendicants
on the other hand would only come to one’s [lay person’s] door and ask for food
[vegetarian food, since it is the only thing they are allowed to eat]. Thus, non-violence
to all living beings to both lay persons and ascetics in Jainism is required.
As we can see in the passage about lay persons “small vows” wrote by Fitz, it
can be said as well that non-violence to the Jains is not limited to non-violence in deeds
[physical actions] but as well [non-violence] in thoughts, as Fitz (2007) wrote, “the lay
person is neither to harm anyone nor to wish harm to anyone”. One may contest that
thinking ill or wishing harm does not directly affect the other person [the person one
wishes to harm], but then “without a hostile thought [that] arises from the polluted mind,
there can be no action of destruction”, Singh (2007, p. 131), in other words since it is in
the mind that [physical] violence primarily arises or starts, it is also right to say that even
wishing harm to others is also against ahimsa, for wishing harm to others might result
someone to harm them physically, hence, one who submits himself to ahimsa must not
only avoid to harm others but also avoid to wish harm to others. Subsequent to this,
himsa or violence in Jainism is violence in deeds [killing and or inflicting injury to
others], words [saying offensive words to others] and in thought [thinking or wishing ill
for others], and that ahimsa is avoiding killing and inflicting injury to others, hurting
others through our words, and wishing ill for others.
Indeed, ahimsa as a principle in Jainism really requires man to avoid from
inflicting harm, in word, action and even in will to others, to living beings. But other
than ahimsa as a principle that compels someone not to inflict harm to other living
beings, “ahimsa or non-violence in Jainism is a wider vision comprehending all the
virtues and regarded as the supreme moral virtue, thus, it is not a single virtue but a
group of virtues”, Singh (2007, p. 141). In other words, ahimsa in Jainism is the unifying
virtue of virtues, which means that other virtues stem from ahimsa or non-violence, so
as; one respects, loves, cares, helps, etc. others because of ahimsa. It is really logical to
say that ahimsa is the comprehending virtue of virtues, for having in mind that one
should not harm or hurt someone, he is compelled to not do bad or evil against others
for it might probably harm or hurt them, instead he is heartened to do good things to not
harm or hurt others. In a broader sense, ahimsa makes a person virtuous, since ahimsa
heartens man to do good, something that affirms non-violence, to others instead of doing
evil against others, a form of violence and so against the principle of ahimsa or non-
violence. This effect of ahimsa to man makes ahimsa in Jainism as “the way to the
achievement of the ultimate goal of human life or the fulfillment of human destiny”,
Singh (2007, p. 141), which is what Huong (2016) refers as the “the necessity of self-
effort to move the soul towards divine consciousness and liberation” (Chapter II, p. 34).
Hence, ahimsa in Jainism is a principle that guides someone towards self-realization,
that is “to achieve omniscience of the soul” as Fitz (2007) calls it, and failing to do so
or going against the principle of ahimsa or non-violence will increase the inquiry of man
to that goal of self-realization.
Ahimsa in Jainism is definitely a principle which is for the good of the self, the
one who observes it, since it will make him, as an observant of ahimsa, to achieve self-
realization. Though ahimsa is primarily for the welfare of the one who observes and
practices it, ahimsa in Jainism “in its true sense perceives inner unity in apparent
diversity, [thus], it breaks all barriers between men and aims to encourage a sense of
oneness in the sense we all belong to human race”, Singh (2007, p. 141). In other words,
ahimsa makes people and other living beings live in harmony, thus, ahimsa helps in
building a better community wherein people and living beings who are different from
one another live together as one.
The development of ahimsa in Jainism, from Hindu, is in no doubt seen on how
they regard ahimsa, as well as to how they observe and practice it. Kothari (2010) was
also right that ahimsa has gained another form, an extreme one, on Jainism, as we can
see on how it is applied to all living beings, as well as on to how they practiced and
internalized it, compelling them to take extra precautions and put great effort not to harm
or hurt any living being in words, actions and thoughts even unintentionally.
Having a background of ahimsa through its development in Hinduism and Jainism,
is already good to understand Gandhi’s concept of ahimsa, but it is not enough, for
Gandhi’s ahimsa was also greatly influenced by Buddhism’s view of ahimsa, hence,
before going to the discussion on Gandhi’s concept of ahimsa and to have a better grasp
of it, one must also see ahimsa’s development in Buddhism.
1.3 Buddhism
“Buddhism is an independent major religion of the world, originated from India. In
its inception, it started as a reform movement within the Hinduism protesting against
some of its features”, Singh (2007, p. 86). “Buddhism proposes a philosophy of life- one
that gives us sets of propositions that attempt to provide answers to such questions as
human suffering, the value of life, the meaning of peace and the way to liberation”, Co
(2009, Vol. II, p. 1)
The previous discussions on the development of ahimsa, shows that Hinduism and
Jainism “embrace not only emphasizing an ideal of gentleness and concern for the
welfare of living beings but also placing ahimsa first among the list of precepts to be
lived by”, Huong (2016) quoted Adam (2006), same as to Buddhism, they also regard
“ahimsa as universal message that does not approve of any kind of violence or
destruction of life, as violence in any form is absolutely against the teachings of the
Buddha”, Huong (2016).

The word ahimsa is not actually used by Gautama Buddha in his teachings, thus,
ahimsa [as a word] is not used in Buddhism, however, the principle and the idea of
ahimsa can be found in their beliefs, practices and their virtues, because their foundation
is Hinduism since “Gautama Buddha [who is regarded as the founder of Buddhism] was
a Hindu by birth and died as a Hindu (Suda, 1978, p. 142)”, Singh (2007, p.86), thus it
is right to say there is a development of ahimsa in Buddhism. Ahimsa understood as
non-violence or non-killing, is actually “the first of the Five Precepts (Pancasila) [which
is] “the abstaining from taking the lives of living beings”; “does not kill a living being,
does not cause a living being to be killed, does not approve of the killing of a living
being”, Huong (2016), hence, like the Hindus and Jains, the Buddhists also believe that
living beings are not meant to be harmed so much more to be killed, then again, though
Buddhist have this same belief of non-violence to Hindus and Jains, “ahimsa/ non-
violence in Buddhism is very different lie in the details of the respective traditions’
conceptions of ahimsa”, Huong (2016), tin other words there are some differences on
the way ahimsa is conceived in Buddhism, though it is not actually totally different from
the way ahimsa is conceived in Hinduism and Jainism.
As stated earlier, ahimsa as non-violence is present in the Pancasila or the Five
Precepts of the Buddhist, and is in fact the first of the five, which is “the abstaining from
taking the lives of living beings”. Like in Jainism, Buddhism also extends ahimsa or this
act of abstaining from killing living beings to animals, as oppose to Hinduism which
approves killing of animals as sacrifice. But unlike in Jainism, wherein ahimsa arises
from the common love of life of living beings, ahimsa in Buddhism stems from their
belief that “all life is inter-connected, inter-related, inter-dependent, co-arising, and co-
existing”, Fitz (2007), thus the Buddhist believes that whatever one does to other living
beings would greatly affect him. Thus, Buddhists, having the belief that all life is inter-
connected, respect [any form of] life; that they must not harm any living being and most
especially kill or take away the life of any living being. Furthermore, Buddhists upholds
that “actions are primarily “mental” in that intention is the basis of action… this being
the case, the Buddhists Believe that what one thinks, as well as what one says and does,
is to be considered himsa or ahimsa”, Fitz (2007, p. 7), thus, ahimsa in Buddhism is non-
violence or not harming any living being in words, actions and thoughts. “this belief is
not absent in the Hindu and [most especially] Jain thought, but it is pronounced in the
Buddhist tradition”, Fitz (2007, p. 7).
But to talk about the Pancasila, one must also take into consideration the
Pancadharma or the Five Ennobling Virtues, which “together with Pancasila
[Pancadharma and Pancasila], serves as moral guidelines and moral injunctions for
Buddhists”, Co (2009, Vol. II, p. 47). The relation of Pancasila and Pancadharma can
be likened to “Dos and DO NOTs” relation, for the “Pancasila depicts what one must
not do, while the Pancadharma suggest what one must do in contrast to what one must
not do”, as Rev. Fr. Jun Bello (2019) told in one of his discussions on Buddhism in his
class in Oriental Philosophy. The corresponding Pancadharma of the first Pancasila,
abstaining from killing [living beings], is “Loving-kindness or Compassion; loving-
kindness (karuna) means compassion for all living beings. It arises from the heart of
those who follow the precept abstaining from harming others”, Co (2009, Vol. II, p. 48).
This is one of the major development of ahimsa in Buddhism, ahimsa as not only
avoiding harming living beings, but most especially loving or showing compassion to
all living being as Fitz (2007) would assert that “for the Buddhists, ahimsa really comes
to mean compassion” (p. 7). Following the Pancasila and Pancadharma relation in
relation to ahimsa, it is the abstaining or avoiding to harm, injure or kill other living
beings by which the love and compassion to this [same] living beings arise from the one
who abstained and avoided harming, injuring and killing other living beings. Hence,
ahimsa in Buddhism is not only non-violence but also compassion.
1.4 Gandhi’s Concept of Ahimsa
Having set forth the development and different concepts of ahimsa in Hinduism,
Jainism and Buddhism, let us now go through Gandhi’s concept of ahimsa, which was
significantly influenced by these traditions.
Gandhi’s ahimsa is not far from the Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist ideology of ahimsa,
that is avoiding or abstaining from killing, harming, injuring living beings, in any form
as Gandhi pronounced that, as Fitz (2007) stated that “Gandhi made clear in a 1916 issue
of “Modern Review”, [that] ahimsa meant non-harm, non-injury, non-violence, a vow
not to hurt any living being by thought, word, or deed”, (p. 7). Thus, Gandhi’s ahimsa
is non-violence to all living beings in all forms; in thoughts, deeds, and/or actions, as
Gandhi pronounced that “The principle of non-violence necessitates complete
abstention from exploitation in any form.”, Kripalani and Meghani (1969, p. 48).
Furthermore, in relation to the non-violence in all forms, “according to Gandhi, the
conditions like anger, pride, hatred, selfish consideration, bad intention and similar other
consideration are the core conditions responsible for the killing or injury to life or
violence”, Mir and Khan (2017), hence, “ahimsa also meant not harboring hatred or
acting from anger, and never resorting to exploitation”, Fitz (2007), for when one
harbors these things, which primarily are only in the mind, he results to violence which
is contradictory to ahimsa which is non-violence.
“Clearly, ahimsa to Gandhi is not only non-violence in the level of action, rather it
also involves the intention of the agent” Rodriguez (1989, p. 22), for like the Hindus,
Jains and Buddhist, who also believes that ahimsa includes non-violence in the mind or
thought of a person, Gandhi also believes that when one have an evil thought it results
to an evil act, hence, ahimsa can only be possible if one clears his evil thoughts, as
Gandhi stated that:
“Non-violence to be a potent force must begin with the mind. Non-

violence of the mere body without the cooperation of the mind is non-
violence of the weak or the cowardly, and has therefore no potency.
If we bear malice and hatred in our bosoms and pretend not to
retaliate, it must recoil upon us and lead us to destruction” Kripalani
and Meghani (1969, p. 49)
At this point, the ahimsa of Gandhi seems to be a passive one, for it is seems to only
mean the abstention of violence of any form towards all living being, but Gandhi made
it clear when he said that “my creed is not passive rather an active force”, thus, like the
other three traditions, most especially Buddhism, Gandhi’s ahimsa has also a positive
side. Gandhi stated that “In its positive form, ahimsa means the largest love, greatest
charity”, Kripalani and Meghani (1969, p. 48), thus, ahimsa for Gandhi is not just the
abstention from hurting or harming any living being, but also displaying compassion,
love, and charity to these living beings, thus one who practices ahimsa must do good to
all living being.
And such is the application to all living beings of ahimsa to Gandhi, so that ahimsa
is not only for those whom one truly knows or whom one is in good terms with, but also
to the oppressor or enemy of someone, as Gandhi stated that; “If I am a follower of
ahimsa, I must love my enemy. I must apply the same rules to the wrong-doer who is
my enemy or stranger to me, as I would to my wrong-doing father or son.”, Kripalani
and Meghani (1969, p. 48). Thus, one who lives in the sphere of ahimsa should also love
his oppressor or his enemy. And more than that he must unconditionally love an enemy,
so that whether his enemy or the wrongdoer is his relative or is a stranger to him, he
must fairly treat and so love them, who has wronged them, the same, for with ahimsa,
one shares “equal love for all mankind”, including those who have hurt him, whether
they are his relative or strangers to him.
Ahimsa for Gandhi is indeed applied to all, even to the enemy or the persons who
have hurt or harmed someone. And in this way, that man observes ahimsa even to the
oppressor or to the enemy, man returns good for what is evil or blessing for a curse, as
Gandhi stated; “Having flung aside the sword, there is nothing except the cup of love
which I can offer to those who oppose me. It is by offering that cup that I expect to draw
them close to me.”, Kripalani and Meghani (1969, p. 48). Hence one returns love to the
enemy or oppressor, rather than the usual response of man to fight against the oppressor,
so that one does not only resign from retaliation by letting go of the anger to the
oppressor, but make the oppressor be drawn closer to him the oppressed, in other words
making the oppressor [enemy] as a friend, as Gandhi said that, “in a non-violent conflict
there is no rancor left behind, and in the end the enemies are converted into friends”,
Kripalani and Meghani (1969, p. 50) .
As opposed to what others think of ahimsa as a passive act of “resignation from all
real fighting against wickedness” or against the oppressors, Gandhi stated that:
Nonviolence is ‘not a resignation from all real fighting of

wickedness’. On the contrary, non-violence of my conception is a
more active and real fight against wickedness, than retaliation whose
very nature is to increase wickedness. I seek entirely to blunt the edge
of the tyrant’s sword, not by putting up against it a sharper-edged
weapon, but by disappointing his expectation that I would be offering
physical resistance. The resistance of the soul that I should offer
would elude him. it would first dazzle him and at last compel
recognition from him, which recognition would not humiliate him but
would uplift him.”, Kripalani and Meghani (1969, pp. 48-49)
Hence, one does not only abstain from doing any form of retaliation, for if one does it
would surely be violence that is against ahimsa, but offer himself to the oppressor,
however, it is not for the sake of offering yourself to be oppressed but so that as the
oppressor coerces the oppressed, who submits himself to him instead of fighting back,
the oppressor will slowly realize that what he is doing to the other person is wrong. In
such a way it is not a passive act for when an oppressed applies ahimsa to the oppressor,
he does not only restrain from doing anything as a response to him being oppressed,
rather, he offers himself to the oppressor not for the sake of being oppressed but for the
sake of fighting against wickedness; making the oppressor realize that what he is doing
is wrong, and such makes ahimsa to be active.
Consequently, Gandhi said that, “this active ahimsa necessarily includes truth
and fearlessness. As a man cannot deceive the loved one, he does not fear or frighten
him.”, Kripalani and Meghani (1969, p. 48). His influence of Hinduism is definitely
seen in here as one may see in the previous discussion that truth and fearlessness where
already pat of Hinduism though it was not definitely associated with ahimsa as how
Gandhi does. Going back to the point, Gandhi recognized that to do such active ahimsa,
one must consider truthful and fearless. One must be truthful or must take in
consideration truth since words and deeds primarily comes from the thought, thus one
must be true or sincere in doing non-violence or active ahimsa which is love, and that,
one must be fearless so that one does not get frightened by others, for when one is
frightened by he will result to violence. And this is so that “ahimsa calls forth the greatest
courage”, Kripalani and Meghani (1969, p. 48). In addition to that, Gandhi said that
there “is no room for cowardice or even weakness” in this active force of non-violence
or ahimsa and that “there is hope for a violent man to be some day non-violent, but there
is none for a coward. And so with this, that there is no room for cowardice and weakness,
Gandhi asserts that ‘one does not know to defend himself, the women and his place of
worship by the force of suffering, i.e., non-violence, he must, if he is man, be at least
able to defend all these by fighting for Gandhi believes that he must rather ‘risk violence
a thousand times than the emasculation of the whole race’, Kripalani and Meghani
(1969, p. 52).
Cowardice and weakness as something not appropriate to ahimsa, would
therefore mean, that the non-violence of Gandhi is not running away from being harmed
or oppressed, as Gandhi said that “his [my] non-violence does not admit of running away
from danger and leaving dear ones unprotected”, Kripalani and Meghani (1969, p. 52),
so that if he will choose between violence and cowardice, he would prefer violence to
cowardice. His ahimsa or non-violence, therefore is ‘the summit of bravery’, does it is
only when one is truly brave or courageous enough that he is able to deploy the active
ahimsa.
To wrap it up, Gandhi’s concept of ahimsa or non-violence has both negative
and positive aspect; negative in a sense that it is the abstention from doing what is bad
or violent to all living beings in thought word and in deed, and more importantly
positive, in a sense that it is not just abstention from doing evil or violence in thought,
word and deed to all living beings but more so doing good or showing love, compassion
or charity to all. And in line to the positive aspect of ahimsa, ahimsa is not limited to
any living being, thus, it must be observed even to one’s enemy who’s a stranger to him,
and that ahimsa as it is observed in dealing with one’s enemy will make his enemy
change to become better and his friend, through surrendering himself to his enemy,
rather than fighting back for him to suffer not others, hoping that by doing so, his enemy
will realize his fault and be converted.
2. Gandhi’s Concept of Satyagraha
Satyagraha is more likely to be an original doctrine of Mahatma Gandhi, though
undeniably it was developed through the existing doctrines, which was not his original,
for “the term satyagraha was coined and developed by him [Mahatma Gandhi]”,
Majmudar (2005)”, Thanu (2016, p. 127). “Satyagraha is the way in which ahimsa is
implemented or put to action; it is a technique of non-violence. The satyagraha existed
before the term was coined, and it was because Gandhi was dissatisfied with the phrase
“passive resistance” that he felt the need for a more suitable and more accurate term to
designate the principle he was propounding”, Rodriguez (1989, p. 7). Hence, satyagraha
is the refinement of the term “passive resistance”, which was associated with his concept
of ahimsa, though later on he made a clear distinction of passive resistance to his
satyagraha, and is, therefore, the practice or the application of the technique of Gandhi’s
positive act ahimsa
Etymologically, “Satyagraha is a compound Sanskrit words satya (meaning
“truth) and Agraha (“polite insistence”, or “holding firmly to”)”, Thanu (2016, p. 127).
Actually, the term that was first suggested by one of his followers in South Africa was
“sadagraha”, the desire to hold firm (agraha) to truth (satya) or reality (sat)], but Gandhi
preferred to term it “satyagraha” to make it more explicit and at the same time to link it
more closely with his concept of truth (Satya), Rodriguez (1989, p. 7), hence, satyagraha
literally means ‘holding firm to truth’. “The word Satyagraha was coined in South Africa
by Gandhi to define the meaning of such as a unique movement and at the same time to
distinguish the non-violent resistance of the Indians in South Africa from the other
contemporary passive resistance”, Rodriguez (1989, p. 8). Such was this intention of
Gandhi to make a distinction of his non-violent resistance to the contemporary Passive
resistance, especially that of the passive resistance going on in the United Kingdom, for
Gandhi felt that, the passive resistance which was known that time and is associated
with his non-violent resistance does not particularly depict his concept and that it failed
to convey all what he meant, as Rodriguez (1989) asserts that “passive resistance
describes a method but it gives no hint of the system of which it is only a part. For one
thing, passive resistance does not expressly depict or at least intimate the aim of doing
good as an answer for evil [something that is essential for the non-violent resistance]”,
(p. 8). However, Gandhi still adopted the term passive resistance during the early South
African Campaign because it is well known an easily understood, Rodriguez (1989)
cites Andrews (1949). Gandhi was determined to distinguish his satyagraha movement
to any other movement that resembled to his satyagraha, for the passive resistance which
was known during his time was that of a weapon of the weak and does not exclude the
use of force or violence for the purpose of gaining one’s end, while his satyagraha is
that for a weapon of the strongest and excludes the use of any shape or form of violence,
Rodriguez (1989 p. 9) refers to Duncan (1972).
Gandhi’s concept of satyagraha is deeply related to his concept of ahimsa as it
does not all cost include the use of violence in all forms, as Gandhi said when in an
interview with Lord Hunter that, “It [satyagraha] is a movement intended to replace the
methods of violence and a movement based entirely on truth”, Tendulkar (1953) cited
by Rodriguez (1989, p.9). Thus satyagraha movement is a “technique of action” to
substitute violence as a response to violence and to overcome violence. “The object of
satyagraha is to convert rather than coerce opponent”, Rodriguez (1989, p. 9), thus,
satyagraha movement seeks to bring ‘metanoia’ or change of heart to the oppressor
without the use of violence in any form, but with non-violence.
This non-violent act of converting the opponent, is made possible by his
openness to others belief or relative truth or satya. Well this openness to others’ relative
truth, satya, can be traced with Gandhi’s understanding of truth. “For Gandhi, Satya or
truth may either be taken absolutely or relatively- depending on how the term is used. It
is taken in the absolute level when he refers it as the ultimate goal, that is God. And
relatively considered when he refers it as the only valid way to search the Satya (in the
absolute connotation)”, Rodriguez (1989, p.16). However, Gandhi was fully aware that
man cannot know the absolute truth, Satya, and that since man cannot know truth
absolutely, he must be open to those who would differ from him, for like them they also
uphold to a relative truth, as Gandhi explained that:
“Man is incapable of knowing the Absolute Truth… the very reason

why we seek for it… that pursuit of Truth did not admit violence of
being inflicted to one’s opponent, but he must be weaned from errors
by patience and sympathy… for what appears to be truth to one may
appear to be an error for others”, Chander (1945) as quoted by
Rodriguez (1989, p.16)
Thus, since one is incapable of knowing the truth absolutely, the Satya, and that the truth
that he knows or he believes is relative to him and not absolutely the truth, rather a
partial of that absolute truth, he must, therefore, be open to others belief or perception
of truth for, for others it is the truth for them, or that it is relatively true to them. And so,
consequently, one must therefore non-violently resist that which he or she perceives to
be untruth, for it maybe the truth for others, for on the other hand, what one perceives
as truth can be untruth for others. However, one must still cling to the truth as it relatively
appears to him for that is what is true to him in that moment, as Gandhi asserts that:
“Truth resides in every human heart, and one has to search for it there,
and to be guided by the truth as one sees it. But no one has a right to
coerce others to act according to his own view of truth”, Bhaneja
(1972) quoted by Lanzon (2018, p. 25)
Therefore, in satyagraha, one clings to the truth as it relatively appears to him, but he
does not, however, use it to coerce those who are opposed to what he believes, but rather,
he must be open to others perception of truth for that is how it appears to them relatively.
In the context of being oppressed, one must therefore not act violently against the
oppressor for the action of the oppressor is the result of his thought or what he believes
relatively as truth, since what one does primarily comes from what he thinks, for
‘basically an action start from the mind’. Satyagraha therefore is converting the
opponent by means of clinging to the truth as it relatively appears to him, but not by
using to violently act against the opponent, but rather by non-violently resisting in order
to persuade the opponent to realize that what he is doing is wrong and that he must
therefore change or not do it.
Indeed, truth is an essential element of Gandhi’s satyagraha for it is in truth, no
wonder why Satyagraha is also termed as truth-force or soul-force, for it is in truth that
satyagraha finds it fortress. As Rodrigues (1989) wrote:
“Gandhi initiated his understanding to his Satyagraha Movement that

it was based entirely upon truth. Such was the very solid foundation
that no one can shake the movement he founded; for this, “Satyagraha,
is literally means holding on to truth and it means therefore, Truth-
force. Truth is also a soul or spirit, it is also known as soul force”,
Tendulkar (1953)”, (p. 15)
As was repeatedly mentioned, Satyagraha or truth-force excludes violence in any
forms as response to opponents, thus, truth as an element of satyagraha includes truth in
thought, for as mentioned earlier in the discussion, that ‘ahimsa or non-violence starts
from the mind’ and so one must not be violent in his thought. Hence in satyagraha, truth
in thought or truth in speech, is also essential to be able to non-violently resist. Thus, is
it also right to say that ahimsa is an element of satyagraha, for satyagraha uses non-
violence, as it is also understood as non-violent resistance.
Other than non-violently resisting from the untruth of the opponent, in
satyagraha one also offers love to the opponent, thus, one continues to do good to the
opponent, though the opponent offers evil to him, this is so because for Gandhi, ‘truth
implies love’, Thanu (2016, p. 128) and that since ahimsa which is an element of
satyagraha, as a positive act, means love, Lanzon (2018, p. 20). Hence, in satyagraha,
one does not only resist from what he believes to be untruth and not harm or violently
act against the opponent, but also one does something good to the opponent or love the
opponent, so that the opponent maybe converted, that is why satyagraha, other than
being called as truth-force is also called as love-force, Huong (2016, Chapter II, p. 37).
It is the offering of love to the opponent that differs satyagraha from passive resistance,
satyagraha is not only cling to the truth by means of non-violently resisting the untruth,
but also loving the opponent who insist on the truth you are resisting from. This offering
of love to the opponent, on the other hand implies self-suffering (tapasya), for as
Chander wrote, ‘love ever suffer, never resents, never revenges itself”, thus the test of
love is tapasya which means self-suffering, Rodriguez (1989, p. 29). And so, other than
truth (satya), non-violence (ahimsa) as elements of satyagraha as mentioned earlier,
‘self-suffering (tapasya) is also an element of satyagraha’. Self-suffering is indeed a part
satyagraha for when one clings to the truth through non-violently resisting from the
untruth, one offers himself to the opponent, not for the sake of him to suffer from
violence nor for his own sake but for the sake of the opponent, so that instead of
opponent to suffer from violence as a consequence when one fights back, in this case, it
is now only the oppressed who suffers, Rodriguez (1989, pp. 30-31). This is actually
moral persuasion of the one suffering, for as the opponents inflicts violence while on
the other hand the oppressed submits himself and let himself to suffer, the opponent as
he sees the oppressed suffer will move his heart and make him realize that what he is
doing is wrong. Thus tapasya, completes this satyagraha of Gandhi, for it is only when
one in a way shows himself suffering to the opponent that the opponent’s heart is moved
or the opponent is converted. But then tapasya is only possible with the concept of satya
and ahimsa on hand, for through satya he better understands what the opponent does,
that it is because that is what the opponent relatively believes, and through ahimsa he
does not inflict any harm to the opponent rather love the opponent and offer himself to
the opponent as a substitute for one’s inability to use violent means so as to achieve
victory over the opponent, thus resulting him to suffer from the violence of the oppressor
which in turn make the oppressor realize that wat he is doing is wrong thus moves the
heart of the oppressor.
These three element of satyagraha namely, satya (truth), ahimsa (non-violence)
and tapasya (self-suffering) are inseparable, Rodriguez (1989), in the goal of satyagraha
to convert the opponent, for one implies the other, as truth (satya), which calls for
understanding and respect for others relative truth as well as truth or sincerity in thought,
implies ahimsa (non-violence), that ahimsa, which makes the person not to act violently
opponent since it excludes violence, rather to love, the opponent, implies tapasya, for us
a result of not acting violently and loving the opponent, one lets himself suffer so that
instead of making the opponent to suffer by coercing him one voluntarily suffers for
others not to suffer, and that through the suffering of the oppressed, the opponent then
realizes that what he does is wrong, thus, he must change.
In short, Gandhi’s concept of satyagraha is converting, rather than coercing, the
opponent by means of showing the opponent the effect of what he does, through self-
suffering, for as the opponent sees one suffering, he realizes that what he is doing is
wrong and that he must change his ways. This is the very reason why Gandhi refers to
it [satyagraha] as a ‘weapon of the strong’, for one to accept self-suffering, he must be
strong not physically, though it may be a part of it especially when one is insusceptible
with physical pain, but more so of being strong mentally and emotionally to cling unto
the truth whatever it takes. But this will only happen if one understands the others action,
for that it is what appears to the opponent as true, and that he must respect it for like his
opponent, what he only knows is relative truth and not the absolute truth, and that he
must not therefore act violently against the opponent, rather let himself solely suffer
from the violence of the opponent rather than returning violence, and through that, as
the opponent sees him suffering he will be moved and realize that what he [the opponent]
is doing is wrong and that he must change it to something that will not make the other
person suffer, and so consequently, awakening the ahimsa in the opponent.
3. Gandhi’s Concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha
As one can see in the previous discussions, ahimsa and satyagraha do support
one another, as Ahimsa would be both means and an end to Satyagraha. Ahimsa is a
means in Satyagraha for, as one can remember, it is an element of Satyagraha, so that
without it Satyagraha is impossible, for first and foremost it is the means to truth, Fitz
(2007, p. 8), which is the foundation of Satyagraha. As well as Satyagraha includes no
violent actions in all forms hence non-violence on all forms must be observed in
satyagraha, and that through ahimsa, tapasya or self-suffering is kindled in one person
as a manifestation of his non-violent act. On the other hand, Ahimsa is an end to
Satyagraha for it is through Satyagraha that Ahimsa is implemented or put into action,
Rodriguez (1989, p. 11), and that satyagraha brings out the ahimsa in the opponent, Fitz
(2007, p.8). Such is this intrinsic connection of this two concepts of Gandhi, ahimsa and
satyagraha that Gandhi often times use them interchangeably, presumably because it
seems to him that Satyagraha was simply the application of the ancient idea of non-
violence which is ahimsa, Bishop (Ahimsa and Satyagraha, p. 53). With these, the only
distinction that remains is that ahimsa is used to refer to the Jain, Hindu and Buddhist
concepts of non-violence, while on the other hand, satyagraha, which is a word coined
by Gandhi, used as the technique of non-violent action applied to social and political
situations, Bishop (Ahimsa and Satyagraha, p. 53). But nonetheless this two concepts of
Gandhi distinctively, are indistinctively towards the conversion of the opponent or the
oppressor, as Gandhi’s Ahimsa, specifically positive act of Ahimsa, aims to convert the
opponent through love, and as Gandhi’s satyagraha aims to convert the opponent or the
oppressor through self-suffering, showing the opponent that what he does is wrong. And
so with this, so long as one is in the sphere of Gandhi’s philosophy, one must take
Ahimsa and Satyagraha together as one and the same, as Gandhi would even use them
interchangeably, though primarily satyagraha is the technique by which ahimsa is
implemented.
3.1 Application of Gandhi’s Concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha
It is evidently true in Gandhi’s writings that Gandhi used his concept of Ahimsa
and Satyagraha predominantly in social, economic and political situations, so that most
of the writers would identify Ahimsa and Satyagraha, as social, economic and political
concepts, for they were what Gandhi used in social, economic, and political actions, as
these concepts, most especially Satyagraha; primarily, clarified the concept of “passive
resistance” which was a political movement during that time, gave rise to movements
like the “civil disobedience” which is another considered as a political movement, as
well as Gandhi has utilized them to fight for social injustices and in leading the liberation
of the Indians from the British empire. Indeed, they can be social, economic and political
concepts, but they are not limited in such aspects, for Gandhi would even assert that
these concepts can be applied in all aspects of life, as one can see in his autobiography
that he was able to use them in his day to day life or in his interaction with other people,
thus, other than Ahimsa and Satyagraha being applied in social, economic and political
actions, it can also be applied to one’s day to day life as he interacts with other people.
Moreover, as for Ahimsa, one can see in its development in Hinduism, Jainism and
Buddhism that it is was more of a rule life or principle of living rather than a political
action. And also, as Gandhi even proclaimed that; “When non-violence (ahimsa)is
accepted as the law of life it must pervade the whole being an not to be applied to isolated
acts”, Kripalni and Meghani (1969, p. 47), thus, ahimsa is or can be applied in day to
day life, with one’s interaction with one another. As to Satyagraha, Rodriguez (1989)
wrote that, “Satyagraha [thus] provides a peaceful yet forceful method for confronting
oppression and evil at any level of social interaction.” (p. 13). Thus, even Satyagraha
can really be applied in day to day life for we do socially interact every day, in many
levels. Therefore, Gandhi’s concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha is not limited to
situations on social, economic, and political issues, but can be applied in all aspects, so
that one can use them in all aspect of life and in one’s day to day life as he interacts with
other people.
B. Forgiveness and its Relation to Gandhi’s Concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha
To know better the relation of forgiveness and Gandhi’s concept of Ahimsa and
Satyagraha, it is just right to first discuss forgiveness, so that we can identify the points
wherein forgiveness can be related or on how forgiveness is related to the Gandhian
concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha.
1. Forgiveness
It is undeniably true that through the course of one’s life, one is mistreated by
others, and that he gets hurt and feels pain physically and/or emotionally, when
he is mistreated by others, though not in all cases. It is indeed part of one’s human
nature, of being sensual and emotional. This mistreatment of others happens
because of the fallibility or imperfection of man especially of the other person
who has mistreated someone, his lack of knowledge and understanding, which
together with his freedom that enables him to freely choose, causes him to choose
to do such thing, choosing what is evil, rather than what is good towards someone.
Man being hurt and feeling pain because of the mistreatment responds to it as
part of his human nature, as a stimulus would provoke a response to an organism,
Mamaat (2017). The common response to it, since one feels pain from being
mistreated or hurt by someone, would be anger, for as Mills (2015) wrote in his
article, Psychology of Anger, that:
“Anger is a natural and mostly automatic response to pain of one form

or another (physical or emotional). Anger can occur when people
don't feel well, feel rejected, feel threatened, or experience some loss.”
The feeling of anger of man is natural, but the insistence of anger in one person
causes him to seek for punishment of the person who has hurt him, and so he tries to
revenge or retaliate as a way of punishing the person who has hurt him. Revenge may
come in the form of doing what has been done against the offender, doing twice the
gravity of what has been don, or anything that probably hurt the offender or the wring-
doer, thus something that is evil, mistreatment or violence in deed or in word against the
offender.
However, not all people are capable of revenging or retaliating, especially when
one sees that he is weaker than the person who has hurt him. And other than seeing
oneself weaker than the person who has hurt or mistreated someone, some people also
think that to do what has been done against them would make them bad persons, and so
instead of seeking for revenge or retaliating against the person who mistreated them,
they just choose not to talk or get in contact with the person who has hurt them, instead
of revenging or retaliating to punish the person.
And so, in many cases, this, harboring of anger causes one person who has
been hurt by someone to hate someone, especially the person who has hurt him,
Flores (2016), for with this harboring of anger, one sees the person who has hurt
him to be the cause of his pain rather than the act itself that causes the pain which
is more proper to say, for logically speaking, without the evil act done against the
person, he will not hate the person who did it. And as a consequence to this,
relationships are broken. But this is not the case all the time, because there are
also cases that despite the fact that a person was hurt already by someone, he still
is able to have a good relationship with the one who has hurt him, and more so,
he does not hold any grudges to the person who has hurt him, though at some
time it may be the case that he has felt anger against the person. This happens
because of forgiveness.
With this forgiveness, therefore, is one kind of response of one person who
has been hurt to the one who has hurt him, as Hughes (2014) would say that:
“From the ancient Greeks through the Hebrew and Christian Bibles to
the present day, forgiveness has typically been regarded as a personal
response to having been injured or wronged, or as a condition one
seeks or hopes is bestowed upon one for having wronged someone
else”
hence, forgiveness is a response of one person to the one who has possibly hurt
him. “Forgiveness is [therefore] ‘a dyadic relation’ involving a wrongdoer and a
wronged party, and is thought to be a way in which victims of wrongdoing alter
both their and a wrongdoer’s status by, for instance, acknowledging yet moving
past a moral transgression”, Hughes and Warmke (2017), and so, in forgiveness,
there are at least two person involved, that is, the person who has been hurt, and
the person who has caused the hurt, and that forgiveness, is something that the
‘one who has been hurt’ gives to the ‘person wo has hurt him’, Flores (2016).
Often times, forgiveness is viciously viewed as just the ‘forgoing of ones
right to hurt or retaliate to the person who has hurt him’, thus forgiveness is just
considered as not seeking for revenge or not retaliating, so that it seems to be that
forgiveness is just on the aspect of not retaliating or not seeking for revenge. But
the word derivation of forgiveness would say that it is beyond the abstention of
revenge or retaliation, for:
“The term ‘forgive’ derives from ‘give’ or to ‘grant’, as in ‘to give

up,’ or ‘cease to harbor (resentment, wrath).’ More specifically,
‘forgive’ refers to the act of giving up a feeling, such as resentment,
or a claim to requital or compensation. And the term ‘forgiveness’ is
defined as the action of forgiving, pardoning of a fault, remission of a
debt, and similar responses to injury, wrongdoing, or obligation.”
Hughes (2014)
Thus, it is not only the act of not revenging or retaliating, though surely it is a part of it,
but more so of giving up the feeling of anger as was resulted due to the evil act done
against the one who has been hurt by the one who has hurt him. And so, to forgive is
not only the abstention from revenge or retaliation, but also releasing the negative
feelings like anger or resentment, as the DBU (Dallas Baptist University) Counseling
Group (2014) would affirm that, “Forgiveness is a conscious, deliberate decision to
release feelings of resentment or a desire for revenge against someone who has hurt
you.”, (p. 1).
Some people finds it easy to forgive someone, especially when the person who
has hurt the asks for forgiveness, when the one who has hurt them is their close friend
or someone they really love, or when what someone has done is not that serious. But
most people find it difficult to forgive, especially when the offender does not admit or
is not sorry for what he has done, when the offender is stranger, or when what the
offender has done is something serious and have drastically changed one’s life,
especially when what one has done have caused someone’s life to cease. But despite
the fact that most people find it difficult to forgive with such cases, there are still people
who ae able to do so and to name some of them are, St. John Paul II, who forgave the
person who shot him with a gun, Anthony Colon, who forgave the killers of his brother,
and Mahatma Gandhi, who forgave the British for oppressing them, as he did not do any
violence against them, even to those who has personally hurt him because of who he is,
an Indian. Thus, despite the difficulty of forgiveness, forgiveness in any situation is still
possible, Flores (2016).

Forgiveness has been a choice of some people for some reasons. One would be
to restore the relationship that has been broken because of what happened, that is why,
forgiveness, is no wonder loosely associated with reconciliation, though forgiveness
would not necessarily be reconciliation, for one can still forgive without reconciliation,
Hughes and Warmke (2017), as it can be the case that one forgives someone who does
not accept forgiveness, or someone who is not sorry of his fault, which is indeed the real
test of true forgiveness, wherein forgiveness should be an ‘unconditional gift’ to the
offender, Flores (2016).
Another reason why some people chose to forgive is that, this is what seems to
be the right thing to do as they are asked by others to do it so as they are obliged or
called to do. Christians have this special calling to forgive as what their scriptures would
tell them as well as what Jesus have preached and taught them as written in the Bible,
as DBU Counseling Group (2014) asserts that:
“In Ephesians 4: 26-27, Paul urges the Christians at Ephesus to release

their anger and forgive. He writes, “In your anger do not sin: Do not
let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the devil
a foothold.” Paul is encouraging the Ephesians to let go of their anger
each day and not to give Satan an opportunity to turn their anger into
unforgiveness. It is important to note that Paul does not say that their
anger is a sin – the sin he is urging them to avoid is ruminating on that
anger and allowing it to grow into unforgiveness.”, (p. 2)
The Christian forgiveness is unique in a sense that it does not only mean to release the
feelings of anger and resentment, but also loving one’s enemies, as it is written in
Matthew 5:44 that in the Sermon on the Mount, that Jesus said to his disciples that they
must ‘love their enemies’. This is often times understood as returning good for evil, for
as an enemy does something evil to someone, the someone [person] does something
good to the enemy. Hence, to forgive for Christians is to love one’s enemies or those
who has hurt him.
Going back to the reasons why others choose to forgive, another reason why
people want to forgive is that forgiveness has benefits to the personal growth, as it would
make them happy and move on from what happened so as to the health of someone as
it reduces rates of anxiety and depression, contributes to better sleep, and lowers blood
pressure and cholesterol as studies have shown, DBU Counseling Group (2014). These
are only some reasons why people, despite of its difficulty, tries to forgive, however,
often times they fail to do so, to really forgive the person who has hurt them, for
sometimes they pretend to forgive someone by the outward forgiveness, by simply
saying someone “I forgive you” or by not doing any violence or revenge to the person
who has hurt them, but not truly forgive them for deep inside them, they do not still
forgive them, because they fail to let go of the feeling of anger or resentment in them,
that results them to hate the person, as some people would say that “It is easy to say “I
forgive you” but hard to really forgive someone”. But nonetheless, as some people are
able to really forgive despite the circumstances, it will surely be possible for forgiveness
to happen in any situation.
Forgiveness is indeed a present reality, for the fact that people can still live
together and have a good relationship despite hurting one another and the mistreating
one another, one can say that forgiveness takes place. With that notion, one can also say
that forgiveness is essential to the life of a person, especially as he lives with other
people, for by forgiveness broken relationships because of misunderstandings,

mistreatments and being hurt, are restored or fixed. But other than being essential in
restoring or fixing broken relationships, forgiveness is also essential personally to the
one who forgives as it would make him move forward with his life so as it would be
good to his health. And that it would also be good for the one being forgiven as he would
be given another chance and that it may also help the offender to become a better person
he should be.
2. Relation of Forgiveness and Gandhi’s Concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha
As we have seen in the previous discussion on forgiveness, Gandhi is one of the
exemplars of forgiveness. Though it was not explicitly stated in Gandhi’s writings that
Gandhi forgave the British colonizers for oppressing them, one can indeed say that it is
the case that Gandhi forgave the British colonizers through his concept of Ahimsa and
Satyagraha, for Gandhi, as one can see in his autobiography and in other stories on how
he responded on the oppressive actions of the British to them, the Indians, did not at all
cost revenge or retaliate against the British colonizers so as to those people who has
personally hurt him, for by his observance of his concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha, he
was able to not harbor feelings of anger or resentment against the British and people
who has hurt him, so as to not revenge or retaliate for what they have done against him
because in his concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha, it implies that one must not harbor
feelings of anger and resentment or do any violence against one’s opponents or enemies.
With this, one can say that, the most common relation of forgiveness and
Gandhi’s concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha, is that they both are attitudes toward an
oppressor, or enemy, or opponent, or to someone who have wronged a person, though

Gandhi’s concept, particularly Ahimsa, is not only limited to persons who have wronged
someone for it was for Gandhi a law of life so that in all aspects of life Ahimsa can be
applied. Moreover, they both are positive response to being hurt as this two, forgiveness
and Gandhi’s Concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha, excludes violence in thought, word
and deed, and that, both of them would start primarily in releasing resentment or feeling
of anger.
Gandhi’s concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha also seems to be related with the
Christian concept of Forgiveness, for they both are into the positive act towards the
person, that is loving the enemy or the person who has done wrong to someone. This is
because, Gandhi also read the Bible as was suggested to him by friend, and that he was
so much struck with the Sermon on the Mount, which Christian forgiveness is based
upon, Bishop (Ahimsa and Satyagraha, pp. 54-55). Indeed, the Sermon on the Mount of
the Bible, have struck him, especially the ‘love of enemy’, as manifested when he said
that; “It is no non-violence if we merely love those that love us. It is non-violence only
when we love those that hate us.” Kripalani (1958, p. 86).
Thus, Gandhi’s concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha is related to forgiveness as it
is commonly understood, for Gandhi’s concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha and
forgiveness have various similarities in many aspects, as they are both positive response
to being offended and include no violence, and other than that, Gandhi’s concept of
Ahimsa and Satyagraha also resembles some concepts of forgiveness like that of the
Christian Concept of forgiveness.

C. Gandhi’s Concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha understood as [Authentic]
Forgiveness
The relation of forgiveness and Gandhi’s concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha,
due to their close similarities, can result to Gandhi’s concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha
to be understood as forgiveness. Hence, one may see Gandhi’s concept of Ahimsa and
Satyagraha as forgiveness. This is so because Gandhi’s concept of Ahimsa and
Satyagraha resembles the concept of forgiveness that is ‘a positive response to the
wrong-doer by means of releasing the feelings of anger or resentment’, and it also
resembles the Christian understanding of forgiveness that is ‘loving the enemy’.
With Gandhi’s concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha understood as forgiveness,
one can already know how is Gandhi’s concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha understood
as [Authentic] Forgiveness, for one has already an idea on how these two concepts can
be linked. But to do so the researcher would first explain further on how Gandhi’s
concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha can be understood as forgiveness by answering the
question; “How does a person forgive the person who hurt him in ‘Gandhi’s concept of
Ahimsa and Satyagraha understood as forgiveness’?”. This is so because forgiveness
itself is an act, and so to have a good grasp of Gandhi’s concept of Ahimsa and
Satyagraha understood as forgiveness, we must know how forgiveness as an act, is, in
Gandhi’s concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha. And, having done that, the researcher will
be able to pinpoint the reason why it is an [authentic] forgiveness, so that, consequently,
the researcher will already be able to give a clear answer on how and why Gandhi’s
concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha is understood as [authentic] forgiveness.

1. How is it to Forgive in Gandhi’s concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha understood
as forgiveness?
Gandhi have stressed in his writing that to do something as an action, one should
indeed start it in his mind, as he would say that “Non-violence to be a potent force must
begin with the mind”, Kripalani and Meghani (1969) and so with this primary notion, to
forgive in ‘Gandhi’s concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha understood as forgiveness’, one
must start it in his mind, meaning he must choose to forgive and to commit himself to
forgive the person who has wronged him, so that he may be able to do the act of
forgiving, as Flores (2016) would approve. In other words, for forgiveness to be an
action, forgiveness must really be in one’s thought and so one must therefore ‘willingly
forgive’.
After committing oneself to forgive the person who has wronged or hurt him,
one then observes the primary requisite of Gandhi’s Ahimsa or non-violence, that is, to
release the feelings of anger or resentment to the person [who has hurt him]. It is
essential for the person to release the feelings of anger and resentment to be able to
forgive, for it is the very essence of forgiveness, more than the act of not doing any
violence or action of revenge to the person who has hurt him, for one may outwardly
forgive someone as he does not violently act against the person who has wronged him
but cannot inwardly forgive the person who has hurt him as he still harbor feelings of
anger or resentment for the person, but not inwardly forgive someone and at the same
time not forgive someone outwardly as he would hurt him. Consequently, it is also the
releasing or forgoing the feelings of resentment or anger that would constrain the person
from doing any revenge or violence in words and in deeds to the person who has hurt as
Gandhi would approve.
One may indeed find it difficult to release the feelings of resentment or anger for he
may not find any reason to do it, and so he must then observe the very foundation of
Satyagraha, that is to cling to the truth. But for someone to cling to the truth, one must
know the truth first and so he must contemplate or reflect on what has been done to him,
on his experience or on the situation, and try understand and accept it. This may take
some time to do it, for to contemplate on something, especially to know the truth would
really entail for some time to do it so that one will have a good grasp of it, and Gandhi
would also suggest that the contemplation must be on the sphere of non-violence, thus
one might exclude his negative feelings, for by doing so, one will be able to know the
truth better, as compared to contemplating when one has negative feelings, wherein it
can become fallacious.
In doing it, one will realize that person himself did not hurt him rather it is the
wrong-doing of the person that hurts him which on the other hand is caused by the
undeniable imperfection of man, for without the act that the wrong-doer has done, he
will not be hurt in the first place. He also realizes that he himself is being forgiven by
others, thus he must also forgive others, and much more to a Christian, for he realizes
that despite his sinfulness God forgives him and still loves him, giving him blessings
and giving him another chance, and so he should also forgive others as his God forgives
him. In ‘clinging to the truth’ one realizes that the person who has wronged him must
be forgiven for he was just wrong at some point or at some time and that the wrong-doer
without the act that he has done that hurt him, will not really hurt him, it was just that
the person who has wronged him in a way mistakenly did it because of his lack of
knowledge and understanding. Thus, he recognizes that he must hate the act but not the
person. Moreover, he will also realize that returning violence or revenging would not
solve or change the fact that it has been done already and that it might just aggravate the
situation, so that others may possibly get hurt also, and so he should just choose forgive
the person to constrict the aggravation of the situation. One also realizes that the wrong-
doer is also man, who has this innate goodness and capacity to change, and so despite
of what he has done, he still has this goodness in him wherein his capacity to change, to
become a better person, can start. And so with this, one realizes that he must forgive the
person who has hurt him to give hoping that by doing so, he will change to become
better person, as he is capable to do so.
Now that a person who has been hurt finds a great reason to forgive the person,
though there are actually other reasons that might drive a person to forgive someone like
his love for the person who has hurt him or for his peace of mind etc., although, at some
point he struggles on releasing the feelings of anger and resentment, he is now able to
release the feelings of anger or resentment. As a result, he also observes tapasya or self-
suffering, for he chooses to just keep the suffering for himself other than making the
wrong-doer or others suffer also.
But to forgive in ‘Gandhi’s concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha understood as
forgiveness’ does not stop in the releasing of the feelings of anger and resentment, but
goes beyond it, for after one releases his feelings of resentment or anger to the person
who has hurt him, he then loves the person who has hurt him, hence, he does good things
to the wrong-doer and treat him normally as he would treat his brother, though it may
still be possible that he will remember what the wrong-doer has done to him especially
when it is indeed life-changing, however he will not feel anger or resentment to the
person anymore since he has already release those feelings.
But not all wrong-doers will accept the forgiveness that one offers, instead they will
continue to hurt the person, and not feel sorry or take blame for what happened. This is
where the struggle is, where most people would find it difficult to forgive, for when they
see that the wrong-doer is not sorry for what he has done and more so that he will do it
more, they are discouraged to forgive the person. But, with Gandhi’s concept of Ahimsa
and Satyagraha understood as forgiveness, this would not impede someone to forgive as
long as he clings to the truth and he has committed himself to forgive, rather it will drive
the person who forgives to pursue to really forgive the person who has hurt him and help
make the wrong doer realize that what he is doing is wrong and that the wrong-doer
should change his ways.
One who forgives then observes Satyagraha, that is the quest to change the wrong-
doer’s heart through love. In here whether the wrong-doer would hurt the one who
forgives, the forgiver would not retaliate or react violently in word or in deed, instead
he lets the wrong-doer do whatever he will. That is for him to suffer solely from it than
making the wrong-doer or others also suffer, as it would just aggravate the situation. He,
then continuously loves the wrong-doer as well, for by doing that, he moves the heart of
the wrong-doer, for the wrong-doer will realize that he is making some who
continuously love him suffer. That would really compel someone to change his ways
for he sees that the person whom he is hurting is someone who loves him. However, in
some ways, this might also hurt or shame the wrong-doer especially that it would make
him look incapable of hurting someone and weak [as an enemy or oppressor], but at
least it is not the intention of shaming the person but changing him to become not
violent, and so a better person.
To sum it up, for forgiveness to happen, especially with Gandhi’s concept of Ahimsa
and Satyagraha understood as forgiveness, one should first have forgiveness in his
thought, that he must be willing to forgive. Then, he contemplates on what happened so
that he will realize that he must forgive the person, then having done that, he should
release his feelings of anger or resentment against the person, so that consequently he
will not hurt the wrong-doer in thought, word and in deed. Then through that he will be
able to love the wrong-doer, and that even though the wrong-doer would not want to
accept forgiveness or that even though the wrong-doer would continue to hurt the him,
he would still love him until the wrong-doer will change his ways.
Now that the understanding of Gandhi’s concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha as
forgiveness has been made clear, through knowing the act of forgiving in Gandhi’s
concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha, one can already answer how Gandhi’s concept of
Ahimsa and Satyagraha is understood as [authentic] forgiveness, for it is just to pinpoint
now where it can be authentic forgiveness.
2. Gandhi’s concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha understood as [Authentic]
Forgiveness
Gandhi’s concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha has offered a way to forgive someone,
that is to release the feelings of anger and resentment against the wrong-doer and then
loving him to help him change his ways and to become a better person. And so with this,
one may ask, how would this be an authentic forgiveness?
There are many ways by which the authenticity of this Gandhi’s concept of Ahimsa
and Satyagraha understood as forgiveness. One of it would be the harmonization of the
thought and action of someone who forgives, for in here, it is not enough for the person
to not retaliate but also to release the feeling s of anger or resentment for the person who
has wronged him, and that, it would actually be what will constrain him to do any
violence since he has removed the feelings of anger. Thus, it is authentic for it really is
what one thinks and what one does.
It is an authentic forgiveness also, especially to Christians, as it would resemble the
forgiveness Jesus have taught and did and what God have commanded, that is to ‘love
the enemy’. This may really be hard but is still possible, as Jesus and also Gandhi has
done it, though Jesus’s example can be said to be more perfect than that of Gandhi’s.
It can also be understood as authentic forgiveness for, it is unconditionally done, for
whether it would be that the offender will ask for forgiveness or not, or whether the
offender would stop what he is doing or continue it, the forgiver will continue to forgive
the wrong-doer by means of loving him despite the things that the offender will do, until
he will be able to make the offender realize that what the offender is doing is wrong and
that the offender should change his ways. Thus, it is authentic for even though what
seems to be unforgivable can be forgiven in Gandhi’s concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha
understood as forgiveness.
And lastly, it is authentic for it does not only aim for the welfare of the forgiver, as
it would be good for him to release the feelings of anger and resentment for it may affect
his health and life as he harbors it, but it is also for the welfare of the one being forgiven,
as it would make the person being forgiven become a better person, for the forgiveness
it offers is something that would change not only the harbored feelings of anger to love
or compassion but also a forgiveness that would change the heat of the offender.
Summary and Conclusion
Gandhi’s concept of Ahimsa is a principle by which man is called to be non-violent
to all living beings, and so must not in any way hurt or harm any living being in thought,
word, and in deed. But more than not harming or hurting all living beings, is the positive
act of it that is loving, thus one is called to love all living beings. The extent of it goes
beyond loving those whom one wants to love but to all, even those who hate him or
what others would call as one’s enemy. Hence Gandhi’s concept of Ahimsa as applied
to all is unconditional and must therefore be applied to all.
On the other hand, Gandhi’s concept of Satyagraha speaks about the quest of person
to change the heart of an opponent through love. Well this is fulfilled through clinging
to the truth, which entails someone to be open and understanding, through ahimsa, or
non-violence, which calls for someone not to hurt the opponent but rather love the
opponent, which on the other hand results to tapasya or self-suffering, wherein one limits
the extent of violence so that the opponent and others might not also suffer. With
Satyagraha, one is indeed called to love the opponent even though the opponent would
hate or hurt him, not to shame or to show his weakness of not being able to hurt but to
make the opponent realize that what he is doing is wrong and that he should change for
the better.
Gandhi’s concepts of Ahiṃsa and Satyagraha can actually be taken as one concept
for, even Gandhi has used it interchangeably. This is so because Ahimsa and Satyagraha
can be both and end and means to one another, as Satyagraha is actually the realization
of Ahimsa and that Ahimsa is also part in the process of Satyagraha, and so this two are
somewhat inseparable for they both are essential to one another.
Though Gandhi used his concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha in solving social and
political issues, it is undeniably true as well that they are not limited to such, thus it can
also be used in one’s day to day life as he interacts with other people as Gandhi was able
to do so as one can see in his autobiography and as he has stated it in his writing that his
concepts can indeed be applied in all aspects of life. With this realization, Gandhi’s
concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha can therefore be applied in all aspects life as one
interacts with other people.
From the proposition that Gandhi’s concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha can be
applied in all aspects of life as he interacts with other people, the proposition that
Gandhi’s concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha can be related to forgiveness arise, since
forgiveness is a reality in one’s life as he interacts with other people.
Gandhi’s concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha can really be understood as
forgiveness, due to its resemblances of the common understanding of forgiveness, that
is both of them are positive response to a wrong-doer and primarily the releasing of ones
feeling of anger and resentment, however, Gandhi’s concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha
understood as forgiveness goes beyond that and so calls for someone who forgives to
love the wrong-doer, as Christian forgiveness is like, ‘loving one’s enemies’, so that by
doing so the person who forgives will be able to help the wrong-doer change to become
a better person he is ought to be.

Other than being understood as forgiveness, it can also be understood as [authentic]
forgiveness for many reasons. One would be that it does not only pertain to the outward
forgiveness that is the resignation from retaliation but also, the inward forgiveness that
is the releasing of one’s feelings of anger and pain, wherein these two consequently goes
together since, when one has forgiven inwardly, it will also be possessed outwardly.
Another reason why it can be understood as [authentic] forgiveness is because it is
unconditional, so that whether the wrong-doer would ask it or not, or whether the wrong-
doer is still hurting him or not, the person who forgives would still continue to forgive,
and love the wrong-doer until the wrong-doer will realize that he is wrong and that he
must change for the better. It can also be understood as an authentic forgiveness,
especially for a Christian, for it resembles so much the forgiveness commanded by God
and taught and lived by Jesus, that is loving one’s enemy. And lastly, it can also be
understood as [authentic forgiveness for it is a forgiveness not only for the good of the
one who forgives but also for the person being forgiven as it would help the wrong-doer
become a better person.

Gandhi's Cocept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha Understood As (Authentic) Forgiveness

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gandhi's Cocept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha Understood As (Authentic) Forgiveness

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SAN PABLO MAJOR SEMINARY

culture, religion, or practice.

wrote in his article, Psychology of Anger;

“Anger is a natural and mostly automatic response to pain of one form

hurt him to destroy the wrong-doers image to other persons.

these circumstances, as some people were able to do so.

2014). Another exemplary of “extraordinary” forgiveness is Steven McDonald, a young

sometimes it even takes time before one is able to forgive.

thinks and encourages them to do [to forgive].

man on how is it really to forgive someone.

most people think to be “unforgivable” [hard to be forgiven], because of what he/they

therefore, Truth-force", (Rodriguez, 1989), he in a way forgave the British

forgiveness and of authentic forgiveness [ forgiveness that is genuine]. And so in this

of Gandhi, Ahimsa and Satyagraha, can be understood as [authentic] forgiveness.

Gandhi's concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha understood as [authentic] forgiveness?”

a. What is Gandhi's concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha?

b. What is the relation Gandhi’s concept[s] of Ahimsa and Satyagraha to

c. How is Gandhi's concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha understood as [authentic]

researcher will do, as shown in the figure:

Gandhi's concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha related to forgiveness, as [authentic]

“Forgiveness is indeed a present reality in the world.”, (Flores, 2016). It is a

knowledge and understanding on how to truly forgive and/or what an authentic

as the researcher presents Gandhi's concept(s) of Ahimsa and Satyagraha understood as

how to truly forgive.

“The discussion on forgiveness before the dawn of analytic philosophy was

speculations on forgiveness started”, (Flores, 2016). There were prior philosophical

of forgiveness. Most of these [philosophical] studies on forgiveness are rooted on

western philosophy, hence, this paper is also an attempt to study forgiveness in an

of western philosophy to explain his ideas.

Though the researcher discussed Gandhi's concept of Ahimsa and Satyagraha,

concept[s] of Gandhi is to be understood as [authentic] forgiveness, and so he does not

[authentic] forgiveness, not in the practice of Gandhi’s concept[s] of Ahimsa and

Satyagraha, and forgiveness separately from Gandhi’s concepts[s] of Ahimsa and

It is as well important to know that the researcher is indebted to several writers,

Readings from Gandhi, a book of compilation of Gandhi's life and thoughts as

Mahendra Meghani. This book contributed especially to the understanding of Gandhi's

An Analysis of Mahatma Gandhi's Concept of Satyagraha; The Philosophy of

Non-violence, a junior thesis written by Joselito Lazaro Rodrigez, which is mainly

focused on the analysis of Gandhi's concept of Satyagraha. Though it was mainly

is part of Gandhi Lecture Series, which is founded by the University of Masssachusetts

understanding of Ahimsa, most especially its’s origins and development.

better understanding of forgiveness.

sources/references from the seminary library is limited.

able to relate Gandhi’s concept(s) of Ahimsa and Satyagraha to forgiveness and to

answer how this concept[s] of Gandhi be understood as [authentic] forgiveness, since

Results and Discussion

called as non-violence, while “satyagraha” would literally mean “holding on to truth”.

these concepts of Gandhi and analyze them.

1. Gandhi’s Concept of Ahimsa

injury, do no harm,” and is referred to as nonviolence, and it applies

discussion that ahimsa is more than simply as a negation himsa.

traditions (1500-900 B. C.) as a reaction against the practice of ritual sacrifices

virtues and goals”, Fitz (2007, p. 4).

positive love for humanity”, Huong (2016, p. 33).

introduced, most especially to Hindus.

of ahimsa is manifested. Ahimsa can also be related to Prasmupanishad’s description

as soon as he injures anyone by thought, word or deed”, Ghosh (1989), as quoted by

of virtues”, Ghosh (1989, p. 41), as quoted by Fitz (2007, p. 4).

Hindu idea of ahimsa affected the Gandhi’s concept of Ahimsa.

importance of ahimsa in the quest of self-realization. He wisely realized that ahimsa, as

underlying yama is essential in Yoga Sutra.

Hinduism. This knowledge of the development of ahimsa in Hinduism, will later on be

important for one to better understand Gandhi’s concept of Ahimsa.