The Art of War

[alice wellintown]

Nothing so aggravates an earnest person as a passive resistance.  If the
individual so resisted be of a not inhumane temper, and the resisting
one perfectly harmless in his passivity; then, in the better moods of
the former, he will endeavor charitably to construe to his imagination
what proves impossible to be solved by his judgment.

--Melville

There are two ways of countering injustice. One way is to smash the
head of the man who perpetrates injustice and to get your own head
smashed in the process. All strong people in the world adopt this
course. Everywhere wars are fought and millions of people are killed.
The consequence is not the progress of a nation but its decline.
Soldiers returning from the front have become so bereft of reason that
they indulge in various anti-social activities. One does not have to
go far for examples. In the Boer War, when the British won a victory
at Mafeking, the whole of England, and London in particular, went so
mad with joy that for days on end everyone did nothing but dance night
and day! They freely indulged in wickedness and rowdyism and did not
leave a single bar with a drop of liquor in it. The Times, commenting,
said that no words could describe the way those few days were spent,
that all that could be said was that "the English nation went
amafficking (a- Mafeking)". Pride makes a victorious nation
bad-tempered. It falls into luxurious ways of living. Then for a time,
it may be conceded, peace prevails. But after a short while, it comes
more and more to be realised that the seeds of war have not been
destroyed but have become a thousand times more nourished and mighty.
No country has ever become, or will ever become, happy through victory
in war. A nation does not rise that way, it only falls further. In
fact, what comes to it is defeat, not victory. And if, perchance,
either our act or our purpose was ill-conceived, it brings disaster to
both belligerents. But through the other method of combating
injustice, we alone suffer the consequences of our mistakes, and the
other side is wholly spared. This other method is satyagraha. One who
resorts to it does not have to break another`s head; he may merely
have his own head broken. He has to be prepared to die himself
suffering all the pain. In opposing the atrocious laws of the
Government of South Africa, it was this method that we adopted. We
made it clear to the said Government that we would never bow to its
outrageous laws. No clapping is possible without two hands to do it,
and no quarrel without two persons to make it. Similarly, no State is
possible without two entities (the rulers and the ruled). You are our
sovereign, our Government, only so long as we consider ourselves your
subjects. When we are not subjects, you are not the sovereign either.
So long as it is your endeavour to control us with justice and love,
we will let you do so. But if you wish to strike at us from behind, we
cannot permit it. Whatever you do in other matters, you will have to
ask our opinion about the laws that concern us. If you make laws to
keep us suppressed in a wrongful manner and without taking us into
confidence, these laws will merely adorn the statute-books. We will
never obey them.
--Gandhi

You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break
laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently
urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing
segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather
paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How
can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer
lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I
would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a
legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one
has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with
St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all." Now, what is the
difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is
just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the
moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of
harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas
Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal
law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just.
Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation
statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages
the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority
and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use
the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an
"I it" relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up
relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not
only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is
morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is
separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's
tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness?
Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the
Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey
segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

--King