Lidt inspireret af militærnægteren, hvis kronik jeg lige har kommenteret.
Allerede da jeg var til session, overvejede jeg tanken. Men jeg besluttede, at jeg ville forsvare mit land mod angreb. Men nægte at deltage i en eventuel angrebskrig, eller meget selvforskyldt krig, hvis det blev tilfældet. Så ville jeg hellere gå i døden, eller i fængsel.
At nægte at forsvare sit land, mod aggression er ikke pacifisme, det er ansvarsflugt. Hvis man ikke nænner at slå et andet menneske ihjel, er det for så vidt ok. Men at forvente at andre følge ens eksempel og overlade ens land til en grummere skæbne, end midlertidig blodsudgydelse, nemlig uendelige århundreder af blodig undertrykkelse og manglende frihed. Det er ikke noget smukt. Det er uansvarligt og virkelighedsfjernt.
Ghandis eksempel virker kun på magter som har moralske skrupler. Det har tyranner ikke.
Jeg meldte mig i stedet frivilligt til militæret.
Mit første valg afstemmer mest min holdning.
Ghandi blev skrottet, og det blev han mest på grund af hans syn på, hvordan jøderne skulle agere over for nazisterne:
If I were a Jew and were born in Germany and earned my livelihood there, I would claim Germany as my home even as the tallest gentile German may, and challenge him to shoot me or cast me in the dungeon; I would refuse to be expelled or to submit to discriminating treatment . And for doing this, I should not wait for the fellow Jews to join me in civil resistance but would have confidence that in the end the rest are bound to follow my example. If one Jew or all the Jews were to accept the prescription here offered, he or they cannot be worse off than now.
En anden ting jeg bemærkede. Hans kamp i Sydafrika handlede kun om at hæve statusen for hinduer:
“A general belief seems to prevail in the colony that the Indians are little better, if at all, than the savages or natives of Africa. Even the children are taught to believe in that manner, with the result that the Indian is being dragged down to the position of a raw Kaffir.”Efter krigen, siges han at have ment - Jeg har engang set det oprindelige citat - At jøderne burde have accepteret deres skæbne med oprejst pande - de var blevet dræbt alligevel - Her i George Orwells optik fra "reflections of Ghandi":
But it so happens that Gandhi was asked a somewhat similar question in 1938 and that his answer is on record in Mr. Louis Fischer's GANDHI AND STALIN. According to Mr. Fischer, Gandhi's view was that the German Jews ought to commit collective suicide, which "would have aroused the world and the people of Germany to Hitler's violence." After the war he justified himself: the Jews had been killed anyway, and might as well have died significantly. One has the impression that this attitude staggered even so warm an admirer as Mr. Fischer, but Gandhi was merely being honest. If you are not prepared to take life, you must often be prepared for lives to be lost in some other way. When, in 1942, he urged non-violent resistance against a Japanese invasion, he was ready to admit that it might cost several million deaths.Det retoriske spørgsmål til sidst afslører pacifismens største svaghed. Mod et totalitært system, uden hæmninger, og uden fri presse, er en sådan kamp forgæves. Millioner risikerer at dø, uden betydning, eller forandring, nærmere end for en højere sag.
At the same time there is reason to think that Gandhi, who after all was born in 1869, did not understand the nature of totalitarianism and saw everything in terms of his own struggle against the British government. The important point here is not so much that the British treated him forbearingly as that he was always able to command publicity. As can be seen from the phrase quoted above, he believed in "arousing the world", which is only possible if the world gets a chance to hear what you are doing. It is difficult to see how Gandhi's methods could be applied in a country where opponents of the régime disappear in the middle of the night and are never heard of again. Without a free press and the right of assembly, it is impossible not merely to appeal to outside opinion, but to bring a mass movement into being, or even to make your intentions known to your adversary. Is there a Gandhi in Russia at this moment? And if there is, what is he accomplishing?
Vold er ikke første udvej, men at udelukke vold, som om at alt og alle konflikter kan løses uden, eller diktaturer forsvinder af sig selv, det er ikke pacifisme. Det er opfordring til at millioner skal dø, uden grund, uden at diktatoren svækkes. Det virker kun, hvor der er samvittighed. Og denne samvittighed mangler netop de mest brutale og hensynsløse totalitære regimer per definition.
Så jeg hælder som i mine unge dage til en pragmatisk pacifisme. Man angriber ikke. Hvis ingen angriber, er der heller ingen krig.
Et totalitært regime, vil angribe. Om ikke Danmark, så dets egen befolkning. For at standse dette skal krig ikke udelukkes.
Hvis vi fulgte Ghandi, gjorde vi det rigtige, da massakrene stod på i Rwanda, vi gjorde ikke noget voldeligt. Men prøv og spørge Rwandeserne om det er den oplevelse, de har? Eller om det nærmere er en oplevelse af at deres 800.000 mistede liv var ikke nogle få hundrede soldaters liv værd?
Der findes værre ting end krig og død. Og ansvarsflugt, undertrykkelse og totalitarisme af uvis varighed er blandt dem.
0 kommentarer:
Send en kommentar