But Peter and John replied, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard." (Act 4:19-20 NIV)
- Law+Justice+Obedience = Peace & Order
- Law-Justice+Obedience = Crime & Destruction
- Law+Justice+Disobedience = Anarchy
- Law-Justice+Disobedience = Resistance
Evidently, the state of civil disobedience is a state of unrest and struggle. There can only be peace when the laws are just and people obey just laws. However, civil disobedience to unjust laws certainly signifies peace within the heart, where resolve submits to conscience. (Rom.2:15) When, from the fountain of a pure conscience, just actions follow, peace prevails within, and peace flows without.
Great peace have they who love your law, and nothing can make them stumble. (Psa 119:165 NIV)
However, when the heart is allowed to be hardened in compliance to godless authority and laws, judgment comes (2Chr. 36:14-16).
Some Quotes
“One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”― Martin Luther King Jr.
“An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law”
― Martin Luther King Jr.
"Civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the state has become lawless or corrupt."
― Mahatma Gandhi
"Civil disobedience is the assertion of a right which law should give but which it denies...Civil disobedience presupposes willing obedience of our self-imposed rules, and without it civil disobedience would be cruel joke....Civil disobedience means capacity for unlimited suffering without the intoxicating excitement of killing....Disobedience to be civil has to be open and nonviolent....Disobedience to be civil implies discipline, thought, care, attention...Disobedience that is wholly civil should never provoke retaliation....Non-cooperation and civil disobedience are different but [are] branches of the same tree call Satyagraha (truth-force)...."
― Mahatma Gandhi
“Colorful demonstrations and weekend marches are vital but alone are not powerful enough to stop wars. Wars will be stopped only when soldiers refuse to fight, when workers refuse to load weapons onto ships and aircraft, when people boycott the economic outposts of Empire that are strung across the globe. ”
― Arundhati Roy, Public Power in the Age of Empire
“If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law”
― Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience and Other Essays
“I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good.”
― Martin Luther King Jr., The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Raja-niti refers to the politics of party and power ("raja" means king and "raj" means rule). It is the common word used for "politics" in India. In contrast to it, the Sarvodaya philosophers, especially Vinoba Bhave, in the Gandhian line promoted what they called as "Loka-niti", i.e. the politics of people. For the Gandhians, centralization of power in any form (dictatorial or "democratical") is a threat to swaraj (self-rule).
"...any state, with separated and strongly developed organs of legislation, execution, and judiciary in well organised large societies, cripples the free-play of individual's faculties and curbs his initiative by enlarging the regions of state control. Progressively it attains the position only next to air in its all-pervading nature. No matter whether such government is an elected representative of its people or a dictatorially established one against the will of the people, it unfailingly produces the evils of centralization and hence necessitates its own eradication for the sake of real democracy.... When the modern centralised state threatens the liberty of individual, of which it professes to be the guardian, it becomes the symbol of violence and a tool of exploitation, and as such loses its right to existence. That is why, according to Vinoba "power must pass into the hands of the people at all levels. Government must continually recede into the background or wither away." (Indu Tikekar, Integral Revolution: An Analytical Study of Gandhian Thought, 1970, p.102)
The philosophical basis of such a concept is a strong belief in goodness within man, in humanism, in the human spirit which is free, individualism, and a leaning towards communism. Of course, communism everywhere has only led away from "community-rule" to more dictatorial and totalitarian regimes - its tragedy. Indian thinkers may ascribe communism's failure to its fundamentalist anti-religious and its dialectical materialist understanding of people and politics. In contrast, "Sarvodaya" (well-being of all, which includes all living beings) begins from freedom of the spirit and rejects deterministic materialism. But, how does that justify Lokaniti?
"Sarvodaya exhorts the people to accept Lokaniti--the ethic of the people in social life--by eschewing Raja-niti. In his "Last Will and Testament" Gandhi had expressed a wish to transform the National Congress that stood "as a propaganda vehicle and parliamentary machine" into a Loka-Sevak-Sangh--an organisation for the service of the people. He believed that it would attain the democratic goal in India by the avoidance of "unhealthy competition with political parties and communal bodies." This remained merely an unfulfilled dream.... Vinoba's Land-gift and Village-gift movements have been conceived to fulfill Gandhi's dream of village-republics (Grama-Swaraja). Through this movement Vinoba hopes to bring political liberty along with the legislative and executive powers from Delhi to the small five hundred thousand villages of India. It can be achieved through the transformation of Raja-Niti into Loka-Niti.
"Loka-Niti in contrast with Raja-Niti strives to establish the real values of democracy. It is the respectable and equal position of every citizen that constitutes the core of democracy. His liberty irrespective of caste, class and sex, is the life-breath of its successful rule. It is the fact of 'humanity' and not the ability, either physical or intellectual, that guarantees the right to security in every sense of the term, under its domain. But the model of democracy has the other and even more valuable side, namely, that of obligations. Every conscientious citizen is alert in shouldering his responsibilities and abhors external compulsion of every kind. Loka-Niti acknowledges the fact that more the citizen become vigilant about the interest and rights of his neighbours, the less the need of a third intervening agency to set order in human relationships and the better for the mutual co-operation of citizens. Then no coercion need spoil the harmony of the corporate life. Naturally, wakeful self-reliance and willing service, instead of grim authoritarianism and the alluring power, will prove the advancement on democratic lines. For this Gandhi had warned--"Swaraj government will be a sorry affair if people look up to it for the regulation of every detail of life." He also detected the dangers of increased governmental power: "I look upon an increase in the power of the state with the greatest fear, because, although apparently doing odd by minimising exploitation, it does the greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality which lies at the root of all progress." It is for the same reason that Vinoba Bhave warns the people against reliance on State, time and again. The shower of help by government, animated by welfarism should be a cause of anxiety for a real democrat since it blunts the sharpness of critical consciousness and tightens the knot of external authority, thus working for 'illfare' of the people. To the Sarvodaya thinkers the remedy lies in self-control which alone ensures self-rule.... In the society of self-ruled individuals, needless to say, no electioneering and struggle for power with the whole paraphernalia of propaganda machinery and machiavellian machinations can find any place." (Indu Tikekar, Integral Revolution: An Analytical Study of Gandhian Thought, 1970, pp.100-102)
Loka-Niti tries to balance self-rule with community-rule in a way that a citizen can both be self-aware and neighborly-aware, and is able to "love his neighbor as himself". Citizens don't look to the state for welfare, but themselves practice welfare conscientiously, mutually, and liberally.
Of course, the quest doesn't end here, though the ideal looks certainly sublime. There are psychological questions regarding the individual human by himself and in society that the philosophy needs to address. There are theological questions as well, regarding God, world, sin, and salvation that need to be addressed. In any case, a political theory can't hang on thin air; it must address the issues relevant to the individual, rational, moral, social, and spiritual man.
Basically, there are two kinds of government or rules: the rule of people and the rule of law.
The rule of people is manifest in democracy (mobocracy) where majority rule or in dictatorship where the whim of a single man pilots the state. Obviously, the rule of law is preferred above the rule of the mob. - The Rule of Law Vs The Rule of People
Today, women protested against the Delhi Law Minister, Somnath Bharti's "raid" in the night hours against women being accused of running a drug and prostitution racket. The police didn't want to cooperate with Bharti since they stated that this was an illegal move. However, the idea of a "people's government" was hot on fire, and it seems Bharti was zealous to be sensitive to the complaints. The AAP justify Bharti's move by stating that since the police weren't responding to the local people's complaint, and usually crime flourishes under the patronage of the police, the Law Minister had to take a move. Of course, the police must answer why it hadn't properly responded if the complaints had been made. Investigations need to be fair. Of course, a letter from an Ugandan official seems to have come in that affirms drug and sex trafficking going on by duping African girls into it.
However, the more severe issue of concern is the breach of the existent law, made by the government itself out of public pressure;. To what extent can such breaches be justifiable? There are dangerous pits on this track.
Propaganda, caricaturing, and dehumanization have many times led to mob crimes. We must be careful to avoid these. If the rule is handed over to people (in majority), then the minority will soon become victims of rumor, dehumanization, ghettoisation, and mob crime. The goal of a law-abiding nation cannot be reached by breaching the law.
We must understand the dangers of giving into the demands of propaganda propelled, passion driven masses. We must not forget that Socrates was poisoned because the majority voted for his death, Jesus was crucified because the majority wanted Him to die and wanted Barabbas the murderer to be released. Justice should not be blindfolded by the demands of the people. This will only end up in another instance of hooliganism. If the law is evil, then let's get rational about correcting it first in a rational manner; why use brute force, especially against the defenseless? We must remember the sagacious warning of Lord Acton, "Power tends to corrupt; and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Kejriwal is a bit theological when He brings his faith in God to issues of personal security.
But, what about the police concerns? Obviously, there is no atheistic prong of approach taken. Nobody seems to have hurled a skeptical or agnostic concern arguing that we don’t know if God exists and if He does whether He is interested enough in the affairs of mortal men. Not that India is not ripe for atheism; but, I think it has tried and abandoned atheism in the far distant past. We are a people, despite the various religious traditions, who believe in the Supreme God. In the past few decades we have also learnt to not mix organized religion with politics. When religion is politicized, religion is polluted, instantly. History stands as witness to this fact that where politics became custodian of a particular strand of religion, the religious spirit was violated. However, this doesn’t disallow politicians from being religious. It is better for a politician to be a believer in the God of mercy and justice than to fall prey to the merciless ethics of a Nietzschean universe (Nietzsche pronounced God as dead in the 19th century and painted hopes of the rise of a Superman who would be above ethics; Hitler’s desire to fulfill it is still a dark blot on the timeline of history, a disgrace to humanity). But, of course, a politician’s faith must not in anyway compromise the freedom of spirit in the right to faith – God Himself allows us that freedom; if not, humanity would be one soup of religion.. We’ve noted elsewhere (God and Politics in Secular India) that God and politics are not strangers; and, there is a way of speaking of God as being secularly involved in history (i.e. unecclesiastically: the New Testament supports the division of religion and state). Certainly, Kejriwal’s faith in God is strong. Is it fatalism? He will need to answer that. But, his actions are certainly too vociferously anti-fatalist: he believes that the future of India CAN BE CHANGED. Perhaps, his confidence in God is an affirmation of divine sovereignty. God is in control and nothing escapes His omniscient ordering of the world. He has publicly argued in the Parliament that nothing can harm him if it’s God’s will to keep him on earth and nothing can save him (not even the biggest legions of security) if it’s God’s will to take him away.
So, it’s not atheism or fatalism that the police is bothered about. Certainly, it’s their sense of duty and responsibility. They are meant to ensure the protection of the city; and, one important step in this order is to protect the head of the state. But, Kejriwal is revulsive to this idea. He doesn’t want to be seen as the head; he has repeatedly affirmed that it is the people of the nation who are the rulers. He hates the notion of a government ruling over the people. So, his argument is quite cogent. The police cannot aristocratize security – he doesn’t believe in the VIP culture, after all. But, shouldn’t security be prioritized? Is the security of the soldier in combat less important than the security of the leader? What would a doctor say about this (I mean an ethically responsible doctor, not the one sold to avarice)? If the lives of two humans are in danger, one a politician and the other a “common man”, and he has to prioritize, whose would he save first? Is it a matter of aristocrizing or prioritizing? But who decides the value of anybody’s life? To Kejriwal, the life of the common man is more important.
But, there is another hook. The police claim that they have received intelligence about threat to the life of Kejriwal and so are constrained to prioritize security. Kejriwal is not just skeptical about this; he is more pronounced about his convictions. Let’s quote a few lines from the Hindustan Times here:
Hours after reports emerged that terror outfit Indian Mujahideen (IM) was planning to abduct Arvind Kejriwal, the Delhi chief minister refused to accept any form of security cover and said the Delhi Police were playing politics along with the central government.
“Is delhi police n central govt playing politics with my security? (sic)” Kejriwal tweeted. “Police officials met me in afternoon. Informed me abt threat. Asked me not to disclose it to media. Den dey themselves went and told media,” he sent out another tweet minutes later.
He said the police had themselves compromised his security. “By announcing this, haven’t police made me vulnerable. Now anyone can attack and it wud be said that Bhatkal’s men did it.”
Kejriwal, who had earlier turned down Z-category cover by the Ghaziabad Police, reiterated that he won’t accept any cover despite the IM threat. “I am not afraid of my life. As i said, i strongly believe in God. Will not take any security,” one of his tweets read.
Denying the Z-cover security earlier, Kejriwal had said, “I don’t need security, the aam aadmi (common man) needs security”. He stressed his demand for security to the ‘aam aadmi’ again on Sunday. “I wud urge police to stop playing politics. Rather than giving security to me, let them deploy these men for aam aadmi’s security,” he told his Twitter followers on Sunday.
Obviously, if it is true that the police have received such intelligence, then it becomes their responsibility to act in accordance to such intelligence. Certainly, if anything does happen to Kejriwal, the police will become answerable; and they must have the confidence to say that they had done everything that could be done to ensure protection. But, perhaps Kejriwal also wishes to say that if the innocent little ones in the city are not protected, if a young girl on the streets of Delhi is not protected, if the poor find no protection from the police, he doesn’t want their protection either. God is enough for him.
____________________________
FEW PERTINENT QUOTES ON POLITICS AND RELIGION BY DIETRICH BONHOEFFER
The right way to requite evil, according to Jesus, is not to resist it. This saying of Christ removes the Church from the sphere of politics and law. The Church is not to be a national community like the old Israel, but a community of believers without political or national ties. The old Israel had been both — the chosen people of God and a national community, and it was therefore his will that they should meet force with force. But with the Church it is different: it has abandoned political and national status, and therefore it must patiently endure aggression. Otherwise evil will be heaped upon evil. Only thus can fellowship be established and maintained.
By willing endurance we cause suffering to pass. Evil becomes a spent force when we put up no resistance. By refusing to pay back the enemy with his own coin, and preferring to suffer without resistance, the Christian exhibits the sinfulness of contumely and insult. Violence stands condemned by its failure to evoke counter-violence.
By his willingly renouncing self-defence, the Christian affirms his absolute adherence to Jesus, and his freedom from the tyranny of his own ego. The exclusiveness of this adherence is the only power which can overcome evil.
Jesus is no draughtsman of political blueprints, he is the one who vanquished evil through suffering. It looked as though evil had triumphed on the cross, but the real victory belonged to Jesus. And the cross is the only justification for the precept of non-violence, for it alone can kindle a faith in the victory over evil which will enable men to obey that precept. And only such obedience is blessed with the promise that we shall be partakers of Christ’s victory as well as his sufferings.
The great masquerade of evil has played havoc with all our ethical concepts. For evil to appear disguised as light, charity, historical necessity or social justice is quite bewildering to anyone brought up on out traditional ethical concepts, while for the Christian who bases his life on the Bible, it merely confirms the fundamental wickedness of evil. The “reasonable” people’s failure is obvious. With the best intentions and a naive lack of realism, they think that with a little reason they can bend back into position the framework that has got out of joint. In their lack of vision they want to do justice to all sides, and so the conflicting forces wear them down with nothing achieved. Disappointed by the world’s unreasonableness, they see themselves condemned to ineffectiveness; they step aside in resignation or collapse before the stronger party.
Still more pathetic is the total collapse of moral fanaticism. Fanatics think that their single-minded principles qualify them to do battle with the powers of evil; but like a bull they rush at the red cloak instead of the person who is holding it; he exhausts himself and is beaten. He gets entangled in non-essentials and falls into the trap set by cleverer people.
Who stands fast? Only the man whose final standard is not his reason, his principles, his conscience, his freedom, or his virtue, but who is ready to sacrifice all this when he is called to obedient and responsible action in faith and in exclusive allegiance to God — the responsible man, who tries to make his whole life an answer to the question and call of God. Where are these responsible people?
We have been silent witnesses of evil deeds: we have been drenched by many storms; we have learnt the arts of equivocation and pretence; experience has made us suspicious of others and kept us from being truthful and open; intolerable conflicts have worn us down and even made us cynical. Are we still of any use? What we shall need is not geniuses, or cynics, or misanthropes, or clever tacticians, but plain, honest, straightforward men. Will our inward power of resistance be strong enough, and our honesty with ourselves remorseless enough, for us to find our way back to simplicity and straightforwardness?
There remains an experience of incomparable value. We have for once learned to see the great events of world history from below, from the perspective of the outcasts, the suspects, the maltreated — in short, from the perspective of those who suffer. Mere waiting and looking on is not Christian behavior. Christians are called to compassion and to action.
…there are three possible ways in which the church can act toward the state: the first place, as has been said, it can ask the state whether its actions are legitimate and in accordance with its character as state, i.e., it can throw the state back on its responsibilities. Second, it can aid the victims of state action. The church has an unconditional obligation to the victims of any ordering of society, even if they do not belong to the Christian community. “Do good to all people.” In both these courses of action, the church serves the free state in its free way, and at times when laws are changed the church may in no way withdraw itself from these two tasks. The third possibility is not just to bandage the victims under the wheel, but to jam a spoke in the wheel itself.