do not wish to question its validity as a political tool under
certain circumstances, particularly in democratic societies, but
only the universality some people would ascribe to it and, above
all, the use of it to invalidate the instinct for self-defense and
the nobility of fighting for truth even on the battlefield if
necessary. Non-violent resistance in the political sphere is
particularly useful for a large group dealing with a superior,
preferably less numerous enemy who has a conscience.
But such non- violent resistance is
not useful in all circumstances. An enemy who has no conscience,
like Hitler, would not be moved by it, but would exploit it to his
own advantage, using it to disarm his opponents. When the enemy has
no real conscience the only recourse is the force of arms, which
requires a true Kshatriya class trained in fighting. Yet Gandhi
encouraged the Jews to follow such absolute non-violence with
Ahimsa has a different meaning in a
Kshatriya context. It means protecting the people to reduce the
violence directed against them by outside invaders or by criminals.
This was the type of violence that Krishna and the Pandavas engaged
in to defend the Dharma. Yet this type of Kshatriya expression was
not followed or promoted by Gandhi. He tried to take a Sannyasin
ahimsa and make all classes of Hindus accountable to it.
Note India's Rebirth, Institute De
Recherches Evolutives, Paris, pp. 160-162, 210-211 etc.