There is no doubt if Gandhi were alive today, he would be gravely disappointed by the recent terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 and America’s vehement reaction to them. A strong believer in ahimsa, or non-violence, Gandhi would ask us to pursue a less militant avenue in rectifying our American pride. For, when it comes right down to it, we retaliate not for justice, but as compensation for our challenged arrogance. It is an American delusion that we are inherently superior and that we likewise retain the right to force others to behave as we do. At a time when most Americans are at a loss as to what action to take, these words can be applied to the current situation. Our recent counter strike, viewed from Gandhi’s perspective, is seen as a detrimental misjudgment. Such superficial attempts at altering people’s behavior will never find success. No man will change by force. No country can be bombed into agreement. He says we must “find out the better side of human nature and … enter men’s hearts.” Thus, only by delving into the belief system that promoted the actions will we have an opportunity to determine future attacks and find peace.

Gandhi’s initial experiences in the courtroom lay the foundation of compromise that ahimsa is built on. The case of Tyeb Sheth, although seemingly far removed from a terrorist attack, introduces a new way of resolving differences that is not commonly practiced, despite its success. Gandhi is able to reveal the truth of the case by understanding both sides equally. But the problem remains that most Americans chose not to know the opposing party, or else make convenient, and incorrect, assumptions. Instead, we hurl condemnation and hate. The Taliban kills some of us; we kill some Afghans. It is this gang-like vengeance killing that creates an endless circle of violence that Gandhi says “might go on indefinitely and to no advantage of either party.” We assume war is the only way to deal with Afghanistan, but to do so implies that Afghans are somehow less reasonable or less human than we are.

It is a common habit among Americans to identify themselves by claiming separation from that which is seen as evil, contemptible or abject. It is a desperate attempt to retain a positive sense of self that unfortunately means the further degradation of the “other.” Timothy McVeigh was sought after, arrested, tried and convicted in a process that took many years, unfortunately, but was ultimately successful and void of further slaughters. In the case of Afghanistan, however, we manage to detach our existence from theirs, making it easy to strike anyone who resembles the “enemy.” In this process, we have demonized the entire nation, distinguished them as inhumane and evil and separated them from the enlightened, reasonable people we unjustly deem ourselves. Gandhi refers to this form of monster-creating when he discusses his sentiments toward the British National Anthem. He states, “it ill became a believer in ahimsa to sing [the anthem]. How could we assume that the so-called ‘enemies’ were ‘khavish’? And because they were enemies, were they bound to be in the wrong?”

It cannot be denied, of course, that the true designers of the Sept. 11 attacks must be apprehended and brought to justice, as well as any man can truly render justice. As Rajmohan Gandhi states, it is hoped that “the perpetrators are caught and punished, and also that in the process American does not make new enemies or new terrorists.” It must be recognized America plays the part of the playground bully. We are large, we are strong and we have a tendency to push people around. Because of this, we have been challenged. Is it beneficial, then, for the bully to perpetuate his negative disposition by harassing the weaker into obeying him? They will be subdued for a short period of time, but only long enough to build up strength and attack again. Essentially, the retaliations only validate the hatred.

The central problem remains. Most Americans reside under the misconception that to refrain from a violent backlash would be equal to admitting defeat. Refusing to annihilate Afghanistan represents a failure by the American people to exact justice. Disagreeing with war insinuates an acceptance of terrorism. These sentiments are common, but their popularity does not make them correct. Human nature disposes us to view things only as black or white, right or wrong, good or evil. This binary vision also pushes us to exacerbate qualities in others to make them clearly different from ourselves. We challenge what we fear about ourselves by criticizing a person or people. In this manner, we can disconnect from things we view negatively. Our “Fight Against Terrorism” symbolizes, not our attempt to eradicate evil, but our desire to feel superior; to feel like WE are the good and THEY are the wretched.

Likewise, it is necessary for us to imagine things from Afghanistan’s perspective. There is no doubt the perpetrators felt (and feel) that their attack was necessary, that it served a greater purpose and was “right.” There is an influential belief system underlying these attacks; a belief that America is the “evil” and must be eliminated. Is there animosity concerning American presence in the Middle East? Is there anger over America’s financial superiority? Is it the perpetuation of Capitalism? Democracy? Differing religious perspectives? It could be any, all or none of these. Nevertheless, men are still willing to die just as long as they take Americans with them. So, should America become akin to the terrorists and return fire in the same manner it was imposed? Do we randomly drop bombs in the general vicinity of where we think Taliban headquarters are located, hoping, of course, that the information we are basing these strategies on is at least partially correct? After weeks pass by and our goal has not been met, do we just continue bombing? Maybe send in ground troops? How many Afghan civilians are we willing to risk in order to restore America’s sense of safety? Essentially, it appears the deaths of Afghans are reconcilable considering America has a larger purpose. Essentially, these deaths are necessary. Unfortunately, a random attack on civilians is never right – not if the Taliban does it, not if we do it.

So how can Americans justify a nonviolent response? When Gandhi was threatened with violence by Natal whites, he found himself in a rather similar predicament. He understood retaliation was not required and to do so would only invite further personal attacks. He simply states, “I hope God will give me the courage and the sense to forgive them and to refrain from bringing them to law. I have no anger against them. I am only sorry for their ignorance and their narrowness […]” Americans, of course, will find this ideology hard to swallow. It is in our nature to fight back and return punches since we cannot see any other means of settling the dispute. But Gandhi places great reliance in natural justice and understanding. By permitting the opposition to be “human” and discerning that they, too are honorable and reasonable people, arriving at a peaceful understanding is easier to grasp.

The basic message is quite intelligible but, admittedly, difficult to follow. It asks that we refrain from improperly distinguishing ourselves from those who committed these acts and that w also deny our initial response to separate from the “other.” Instead, we must acknowledge the truth: that we are so very much the same. Those who formed the attack wanted to relay a message. It was relayed in an inappropriate and tragic manner, unfortunately, but the message itself cannot be overlooked. It also is vital that we do not justify the attacks by proving ourselves to be as awful as it is assumed we are.

Finally, the benefit of the attacks, if it can be said there is one, was witnessed immediately. Americans united, despite their previous claims at being so different. When only minutes before racial slurs echoed through alleys, sexist remarks instigated snickers near the water cooler and intolerance spread in a high school locker room; suddenly the world became smaller. Gandhi understands “how human nature shoes itself at its best in moments of trial.” But moments of trial also open the door for hasty errors and irrevocable misfortunes. The same nationalism that unites us creates an unnecessary pedestal from which we choose to view the rest of the world. Our entire nation, then, becomes even father removed and less able to distinguish what “justice” really is. It is vital we understand superiority to be a figment of our imagination. We must rely on our hearts and minds to reveal the honor, compassion and tolerance we so readily claim to possess. For, as Gandhi states, “there is no other God than truth. And…the only means for the realization of truth is ahimsa.