On this day 78 years ago Mohandas Gandhi was assassinated

 "Terrorism and deception are weapons not of the strong but of the weak." - Mohandas K. Gandhi

Gandhi dictates a message, after breaking his fast, Delhi, India (1948), Henri Cartier-Bresson/Magnum Photos

Seventy eight years ago Mohandas Gandhi was shot three times in the chest and killed by Hindu nationalist Nathuram Godse at 5:17pm. Godse was part of a team of assassins that had tried 10 days earlier to bomb and kill Gandhi.

Mohandas K. Gandhi and his assassin Nathuram Godse.

Gandhi, despite his successful struggle for independence and the establishment of the largest democracy on the planet was felled, after repeated assassination attempts, gunned down as he went to worship.

The assassins murdered the independence leader because they did not believe that India could survive with Gandhi promoting Satyagraha and a Muslim state next door. Gopal Godse, a co-conspirator and brother of the assassin Nathuram Godse, argued as late as February 2000 in a Time magazine interview that: “In politics you cannot follow nonviolence. You cannot follow honesty. Every moment you have to give a lie. Every moment you have to take a bullet in hand and kill someone.”

Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi lies in state at Birla House in New Delhi.

 

Despite hailing from a different ideological camp, Ernesto "Che" Guevara in a different context had shared similar sentiments. In the Message to the Tricontinental delivered to a gathering in Havana in January 1966, later published in April 1967, the Argentine communist guerilla wrote about the utility of hate.

"Hatred as an element of the struggle; a relentless hatred of the enemy, impelling us over and beyond the natural limitations that man is heir to and transforming him into an effective, violent, selective and cold killing machine. Our soldiers must be thus; a people without hatred cannot vanquish a brutal enemy."

This is in line with the ruthlessness found in Karl Marx’s writings.

"We are ruthless and ask no quarter from you. When our turn comes we shall not disguise our terrorism." - Karl Marx, Marx-Engels Gesamt-Ausgabe, vol. vi pp 503-5 (The final issue of Neue Rheinische Zeitung, 18 May 1849)

Communists view nationalists as a threat to their revolutionary project, and nationalists often have a critical view of Marxist-Leninists, but they both agreed on their hostility to Mohandas Gandhi.

The nationalists were open and transparent about their evil intent, but the communists had more guile, and their reasons for rejecting Gandhi more complex, but equally sinister.

 

"The Class Essence of Gandhism" by S.M. Vakar critiques Gandhi

 

The Soviet press published an article written by S.M. Vakar in 1948 following Gandhi's assassination on January 30, 1948 titled "The Class Nature of the Gandhi Doctrine" subtitled "Gandhi as a Reactionary Utopian" in the Soviet philosophy journal Voprosy filosofii (Questions of Philosophy). The Marxist Leninist argument was outlined as follows.

“Although Gandhi regarded the union and independence of the Indian peoples as his goal, his reactionary-Utopian social theory and the reformist methods of struggle connected with it caused his activity to fail in facilitating overthrow of the colonial yoke [...] The social essence of the Gandhi doctrine and its fundamentally reactionary role in the history of India's national liberation movement has hardly been treated in Marxist literature. Yet this doctrine still retards the development of class awareness among the Indian masses.”

What was this social essence of Gandhian thought that so troubled the Marxist-Leninists in the Soviet Union?

First, the "reformist methods" of struggle referred to in the above quote were means of nonviolent resistance and secondly his social theory rejected class struggle as another manifestation of destructive violence.

On September 11, 1906 a new word came into existence that gave a more precise understanding of Gandhi's social theory and method of struggle which he described as follows.

'Satyagraha.' Truth (Satya) implies love, and firmness (agraha) engenders and therefore serves as a synonym for force. I thus began to call the Indian movement 'Satyagraha,' that is to say, the Force which is born of Truth and Love or non-violence, and gave up the use of the phrase 'passive resistance,' in connection with it, so much so that even in English writing we often avoided it and used instead the word 'Satyagraha' itself or some other equivalent English phrase.

The Marxist-Leninists embrace revolutionary violence and a movement led by a small vanguard of professional revolutionaries that carry out the changes by whatever means necessary and reject nonviolence as naive. They follow the doctrine of Vladimir Lenin as presented in his 1902 revolutionary tract "What is to be done."

This did not change once the Bolsheviks took power in 1917.

On October 2, 1920, the first leader of the Soviet Union, Vladimir Lenin, stated in a speech to Russian communist youth.

"The class struggle is continuing and it is our task to subordinate all interests to that struggle. Our communist morality is also subordinated to that task. We say: morality is what serves to destroy the old exploiting society and to unite all the working people around the proletariat, which is building up a new, communist society."

According to Lenin, "To speak the truth is a petite-bourgeois habit. To lie, on the contrary, is often justified by the lie's aim."

This doctrine embraces both the lie and hatred of the class enemy as necessities to achieve revolution. Gandhian Satyagraha is its philosophical anti-thesis.

Over a century has passed since both sets of ideas have been set out and applied around the world. An analysis done by Maria J. Stephen and Erica Chenoweth systematically explores the strategic effectiveness of both violent and nonviolent campaigns using data on 323 campaigns carried out between 1900 and 2006.[1] Their findings demonstrate that major non-violent campaigns were successful 53% of the time versus only 26% for major violent campaigns and terrorist campaigns had a dismal 7% success rate.

Today, India with all its flaws is the world's largest democracy with a growing economy that presents new competitive challenges to the developed world and Communism has amassed a body count of 100 million dead and counting. It would appear that Gandhi's criticisms of the communists were prescient:

"The socialists and communists say, they can do nothing to bring about economic equality today. They will just carry on propaganda in its favor and to that end they believe in generating and accentuating hatred. They say, when they get control over the State, they will enforce equality. Under my plan the State will be there to carry out the will of the people, not to dictate to them or force them to do its will." - Mohandas Gandhi

"It is my firm conviction that if the State suppressed capitalism by violence, it will be caught in the coils of violence itself, and will fail to develop non-violence at any time. The State represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. The individual has a soul, but as the State is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence." - Mohandas Gandhi

It is Satyagraha that is relevant today in 2026 and offers an alternative to the conflagrations suffered in the past century and the wars that plague the world now.

Gandhi's Satyagraha is a call to principled non-violence but even pragmatists and realists looking over the historical record cannot fail to be influenced by the fact that non-violent civic resistance works and offers a better chance of a better life for more people.

Others have embraced nonviolence based in adherence to the truth. They have achieved much, but in too many cases paid with their lives.

Like Gandhi, they also rejected communist ideology.

 

One was a Southern Baptist minister who transformed the United States, but did not live to see his 40th birthday. He was assassinated by a white racist in 1968. A radical critique of American society was held by Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. He consistently pushed for reforms to end segregation and guarantee African Americans' right to vote through democratic norms and nonviolent action, and he urged the United States to live up to its own aspirational ideals.

The best way to characterize Reverend King's political philosophy is as belonging to what is known as Christian democracy. This political school is centered on a Christian understanding of humanity, where "every individual is considered unique and must be treated with dignity." It includes both center-left and center-right parties.

Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. sought to end racial segregation in the United States, and build the beloved community. However, he rejected communism as the means to achieve it.

"Since for the Communist there is no divine government, no absolute moral order, there are no fixed, immutable principles; consequently almost anything—force, violence, murder, lying—is a justifiable means to the “millennial” end.⁵ This type of relativism was abhorrent to me." - Martin Luther King Jr. Stride to Freedom (1958)

"Constructive ends can never give absolute moral justification to destructive means, because in the final analysis the end is pre-existent in the mean." - Martin Luther King Jr. Stride to Freedom (1958)

Another was an engineer, and a Catholic layman who founded the Christian Liberation Movement, and nonviolently changed Cuba, but did no live to see his 61st birthday. He was assassinated by Cuban government agents, together with his movement's youth leader Harold Cepero in 2012.

Oswaldo Payá Sardiñas presented a radical critique of the communist dictatorship, and sought nonviolent means within the existing system to achieve a transition to democracy in Cuba based in the rule of law. In the two years prior to his untimely death, Oswaldo worked on the book "The Night is Not Eternal" in which he gave an assessment of the fraudulent change of the Cuban dictatorship that, while recognizing class differences, rejected class hatred.

"Let us remember that the Revolution here was made in the name of the poor, but after using them to suppress the rich and leave everyone who had something with nothing, the right of expression was taken away from everyone and from the poor themselves, who long ago lost their voice and cannot even say that they are poor. In this current situation of inequality sustained by oppression, if these changes are implemented, inequality will only deepen. We have always said this without class hatred or hatred of any kind, but everything indicates that this re-conversion of privilege is not implemented in a transition but in an inheritance in which the oligarchy leaves its successors with other styles and other content of inequality."

In 2002, when Oswaldo received the European Union's Sakharov Prize, and addressed the EU parliament in Brussels he spoke of the dangers of globalization, in terms that both Gandhi, and King would have appreciated and shared.

"The talk today is of globalization, but we must state that unless there is global solidarity, not only human rights but also the right to remain human will be jeopardized. If there is no solidarity between people we will be unable to preserve a fair world in which it is possible to continue living as human beings."

The critique made by Payá, King and Gandhi is against a "thing-oriented" society or a government as a "soulless machine" that looks to the person or the individual as an "economic automaton", or " the masses" that constitute an economic class because either is a dystopian system. They argue that the focus should be on the human person and policies that recognize and respect the uniqueness of each human being and their fundamental dignity.

We are living in times where their example is more needed than ever to inspire truth and firmness in defiance of evil practices.

Reverend Martin Luther King Jr was born 97 years ago today

  "Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon, which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals." - Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1964

Martin Luther King Jr. January 15, 1929 - April 4, 1968

Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. was born in Atlanta, Georgia 97 years ago today, but he never lived to see his 40th birthday because he was assassinated on April 4, 1968.

A little more than a year before his untimely death, the nonviolent icon delivered an important speech at Stanford University that is well worth hearing and studying.

"Let me say as I've always said, and I will always continue to say, that riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. I'm still convinced that nonviolence is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and justice. I feel that violence will only create more social problems than they will solve." 

Dr. King's message is still relevant today, and his family works at The King Center to teach new generations about nonviolence and to share his writings and speeches.

🔥 DOWN BELOW: List of Rev. Dr. #MartinLutherKingJr’s speeches and sermons in which he courageously speaks truth; shares about Kingian nonviolence; and expounds on issues of injustice and what our righteous, rigorous response should be.

1. “It's more difficult today because we… pic.twitter.com/0dKrYDEw37

— The Martin Luther King, Jr. Center (@TheKingCenter) January 15, 2026

King's radical critique of the United States

Martin Luther King Jr. was an outspoken critic of American society. He repeatedly challenged the United States to live up to its own lofty ideals, seeking reforms to end segregation and ensure voting rights for African Americans through nonviolent action and democratic norms.  He was also a radical critic of communism.

Reverend King's political philosophy is best described as Christian Democracy. This school of thought, which includes parties on the center left and center right, is based, like Reverend King, on a Christian view of humanity in which "every individual is considered unique and must be treated with dignity." In his April 4, 1967 speech, Beyond Vietnam gave full expression to this outlook:

"We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, militarism and economic exploitation are incapable of being conquered. A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life’s roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see than an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. "

Mohandas Gandhi, a major influence on King, advocated for social responsibility and trusteeship. Gandhi,  a self-described socialist, was not an enthusiastic supporter of an expanded social-welfare state, arguing:

"The State represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. The individual has a soul, but as the State is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence. Hence I prefer the doctrine of trusteeship. [...] What I would personally prefer would be not centralization of power in the hands of the State, but an extension of the sense of trusteeship, as, in my opinion, the violence of private ownership is less injurious than the violence of the State. However, if it is unavoidable, I would support a minimum of State-ownership."

Furthermore, both King and Gandhi's critique of a "thing-oriented" society or the state as a "soulless machine" focuses on the person or the individual rather than an economic mechanism or economic class. The emphasis is on the human person and policies that recognize and respect the uniqueness and dignity of each human being. 

King was targeted by both the FBI and the KGB

KGB targeted Martin Luther King Jr. for active measures.

When he was alive, the civil rights leader was a divisive figure. The FBI in the United States wiretapped Martin Luther King Jr., monitored the Civil Rights Movement, and took active measures against him.
Many people are aware of this, but few are aware of the other campaign launched against the civil rights leader by Soviet intelligence, also known as the KGB. It is also important to remember that Russian intelligence operatives have previously attempted to sow discord, division, and hatred among citizens in the United States. 

A high-ranking Russian intelligence officer defected to the United Kingdom in 1992, bringing with him notes and transcripts compiled over the previous thirty years as he relocated entire foreign intelligence archives to a new headquarters just outside of Moscow. Vasili Mitrokhin was the Russian intelligence officer whose information became known as The Mitrokhin Archive. 

In Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin's 1999 book The Sword and the The Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB, details were obtained from the Mitrokhin Archive on Soviet efforts to replace Martin Luther King Jr. with a "more radical and malleable leader" such as Stokeley Carmichael in order to incite a race war in the United States.

The following excerpts from The Sword and the Shield detail elements of the Soviet intelligence campaign and the active measures arrayed against the civil rights leader:

“In August 1967 the Centre approved an operational plan by the deputy head of Service A, Yuri Modin, former controller of the Magnificent Five, to discredit King and his chief lieutenants by placing articles in the African press, which could then be reprinted in American newspapers, portraying King as an “Uncle Tom” who was secretly receiving government subsidies to tame the civil rights movement and prevent it threatening the Johnson administration." 

[...]  

"King’s assassination on April 4, 1968 was quickly followed by the violence and rioting which the KGB had earlier blamed King for trying to prevent. Within a week riots erupted in over a hundred cities, forty-six people had been killed, 3,500 injured and 20,000 arrested. To “Deke” DeLoach, it seemed that, “The nation was teetering on the brink of anarchy.”86 Henceforth, instead of dismissing King as an Uncle Tom, Service A portrayed him as a martyr of the black liberation movement and spread conspiracy theories alleging that his murder had been planned by white racists with the connivance of the authorities."

On September 28, 1999, University of Cambridge professor Christopher Andrew, who coauthored The Sword and the Shield with Vasili Mitrokhin, was interviewed by Charlie Rose on PBS about the book and, near the end of the interview, discussed how the Soviets celebrated the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. by James Earl Ray. The Russians rejoiced because they did not want an independent African American leader over whom they had no control and who practiced principled nonviolence.

Taylor Branch wrote about the Reverend's views on the militant call to armed struggle in the streets of the United States in January 1968 in the third book of his trilogy on Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement, At Canaan's Edge.

 “Riots just don’t pay off,” said King. He pronounced them an objective failure beyond morals or faith. “For if we say that power is the ability to effect change, or the ability to achieve purpose,” he said, “then it is not powerful to engage in an act that does not do that–no matter how loud you are, and no matter how much you burn.” Likewise, he exhorted the staff to combat the “romantic illusion” of guerrilla warfare in the style of Che Guevara. No “black” version of the Cuban revolution could succeed without widespread political sympathy, he asserted, and only a handful of the black minority itself favored insurrection. King extolled the discipline of civil disobedience instead, which he defined not as a right but a personal homage to untapped democratic energy. The staff must “bring to bear all of the power of nonviolence on the economic problem,” he urged, even though nothing in the Constitution promised a roof or a meal. “I say all of these things because I want us to know the hardness of the task,” King concluded, breaking off with his most basic plea: “We must not be intimidated by those who are laughing at nonviolence now.”

These words are as true today as they were over a half-century ago. Reverend King's legacy continues to inspire activists worldwide. This Baptist minister who risked everything for the freedom of all African Americans and the redemption of the United States by fulfilling the creed that all men are created equal.

Today, The King Center honors the life, legacy, and enduring moral courage of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on what would have been his 97th birthday.

His belief that “unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality” continues to guide our work to help… pic.twitter.com/Y2MCD83uCG

— The Martin Luther King, Jr. Center (@TheKingCenter) January 15, 2026

Unlike others who were funded and supported by the Soviet Union, Martin Luther King Jr. was targeted by both American and Russian intelligence agencies because he was his own man, with no one controlling him except his conscience. He did not advocate or engage in violence while changing the United States and the world for the better.

King's living legacy

The King Center presents the 2026 Beloved Community Global Summit, a King Holiday Observance convening of visionary leaders, innovators, and scholars from across sectors. We will be streaming live at 12:30pm EST. https://t.co/5gRwdN55cX

— The Martin Luther King, Jr. Center (@TheKingCenter) January 15, 2026

Bernice King, Martin Luther King Jr.'s daughter, hosted the aforementioned Beloved Community Global Summit and continues carrying on her father's work to advance nonviolence.

Today, on what would have been his 97th birthday, let us remember him and renew our commitment to continuing his work "to shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society."  

Remembering Václav Havel, Oswaldo Payá Sardiñas and nonviolent action

 "A single idea, if it is right, saves us the labor of an infinity of experiences." - Jacques Maritain

Oswaldo Payá Sardiñas and President Václav Havel in Prague (2002)

Twenty three years ago on December 17, 2002 Oswaldo Paya addressed the European Parliament in Strasbourg at a ceremony awarding him the the Sakharov Prize where he outlined his nonviolent vision for change in Cuba.

"The first victory we can claim is that our hearts are free of hatred. Hence we say to those who persecute us and who try to dominate us: ‘You are my brother. I do not hate you, but you are not going to dominate me by fear. I do not wish to impose my truth, nor do I wish you to impose yours on me. We are going to seek the truth together.’"

 Václav Havel passed away fourteen years ago today, on December 18, 2011. His nonviolent resistance and dedication to truth in successfully resisting totalitarian rule in Czechoslovakia remain powerful legacies and examples that are relevant today. In 2002, President Vaclav Havel addressed the Cuban people and offered words that should be heeded now:

"Our world, as a whole, is not in the best of shape and the direction it is headed in may well be quite ambivalent. But this does not mean that we are permitted to give up on free and cultivated thinking and to replace it with a set of utopian clichés. That would not make the world a better place, it would only make it worse. On the contrary, it means that we must do more for our own freedom, and that of others."

Nonviolence requires recognizing these extreme injustices and the justifiable anger that it generates but at the same time channeling it into creative and productive means to end the injustices. Some would argue that one must remove their anger, as one takes off a back pack, but that is profoundly mistaken. Martin Luther King Jr. offered a different approach that has proven more powerful: 

"The supreme task [of a leader] is to organize and unite people so that their anger becomes a transforming force." 

Mohandas Gandhi spoke in 1920 of learning "through bitter experience the one supreme lesson to conserve my anger, and as heat conserved is transmuted into energy, even so our anger controlled can be transmuted into a power that can move the world."
 
This is not hating but harnessing a powerful spiritual energy and channeling it productively. Blowing up and screaming at someone is a waste of that energy that can be channeled into creative solutions to end the injustice.

Nonviolence theoretician Gene Sharp also recognizes that there is a moral dimension that cannot be ignored without dire consequences (as efforts to normalize relations with the Castro regime in Cuba demonstrated): "It is unreasonable to aim for a 'win- win' resolution. Brutal dictators and perpetrators of genocide do not deserve to win anything."

Today we mark the anniversary of the passing of Václav Havel, the president who led Czechia back into the community of free nations and whose name continues to be respected around the world. pic.twitter.com/VuCGIN9BzG

— Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs (@CzechMFA) December 18, 2025

Nonviolent thought can be divided into two general categories: strategic nonviolence and principled nonviolence but although emphasizing different perspectives they need not be in conflict.
Strategic nonviolence takes a pragmatic approach that is based on being more effective then violence. 

Non-violent resistance is an armed struggle but its weapons are not deployed to do violence or kill. These arms are psychological, social, economic and political weapons. Gene Sharp argues with much evidence "that this is ultimately more powerful against oppression, injustice and tyranny then violence. Historical studies are cited that demonstrate the higher success rates of nonviolent movements when compared against violent ones. 

University Academics Maria J. Stephan and Erica Chenoweth in their 2008 study "Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic on Nonviolent Conflict" compared the outcomes of 323 nonviolent and violent resistance campaigns from 1900 to 2006. They found that major nonviolent campaigns have achieved success 53 percent of the time, compared with just under half that at 26 percent for violent resistance campaigns. Finally there study also suggests “that nonviolent campaigns are more likely than violent campaigns to succeed in the face of brutal repression.”

Principled nonviolence looks at the spiritual dimension, and the power of an individual to change and in doing so impact the world. Mohandas Gandhi described it as follows on September 8, 1913 in Indian Opinion:

"We but mirror the world. All the tendencies present in the outer world are to be found in the world of our body. If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. This is the divine mystery supreme. A wonderful thing it is and the source of our happiness. We need not wait to see what others do."

The advantage of principled non-violence and taking it up as a daily practice in ones life is that it gives one the strength to resist provocations and builds up the character of the practitioner that assists in carrying out a strategic nonviolent plan.

Critics of nonviolence often argue that nonviolence works well against democracies but not brutal regimes, often citing the Nazis. Nevertheless in 1943 in Germany on Rosenstrasse street German wives married to Jewish men, who had been taken to concentration camps, organized a series of strikes and protests that forced the Nazis to return their Jewish husbands back from the death camps. Those men survived the Holocaust thanks to their wives courageous and nonviolent action.  

The disturbing questions that should arise are: What would have happened if instead of the violent Antifa movement, that fought the Nazis in street battles throughout the 1930s that escalated violence, opponents of the Nazis had followed Gandhi's advice at the time and resisted them nonviolently? What would have happened if the Weimar Republic instead of attempting to silence the Nazis by repeatedly prosecuting them for violating hate speech laws had challenged their evil ideas in the court of public opinion?

Since the founding of the Cuban Committee for Human Rights in 1976 there has existed in overall terms a general strategy of change that can be summed up as: " Carrying out a nonviolent struggle in defense of human rights for the freedom of Cuba."

Looking at another definition of strategy that divides it into three parts gives a better idea of the challenges facing the democratic opposition in Cuba:

1. Diagnostic: A totalitarian dictatorship with dynastic elements with the political will to hang on to power.
2. Guiding policy: nonviolence
3. Action plan: There exist different areas of emphasis by the opposition and civil society that is also something found in nonviolent struggles.

Strategic nonviolence takes a pragmatic approach that is based on being more effective then violence: 

Non-violent resistance is an armed struggle but its weapons are not deployed to do violence or kill. These arms are  psychological, social, economic and political weapons. Gene Sharp argues with much evidence "that this is ultimately more powerful against oppression, injustice and tyranny then violence." 

The reason for the greater success rate of nonviolent resistance is that it is easier to mobilize large numbers of people to take nonviolent action than to engage in violent action. Success is not only defined by overthrowing the existing regime, but having a transition that ends in a democratic regime. The methods used in nonviolent struggle translate better to democratic practices then violent resistance because they involve nonviolent discipline, the mobilization of large numbers and the encouragement of civic virtue.  

Vaclav Havel talks about the Communist dictatorship in Cuba and the position he was in to promote free thought and other freedoms Cubans are still deprived of in their own country. ( Recorded 2007) https://t.co/EuwaqttG7E #Cuba #CzechRepublic #VaclavHavel #DeathAnniversary

— Center for a Free Cuba (@cubacenter) December 18, 2025

Furthermore the use of humor is not to be underestimated. Václav Havel in an address to the Central European University on June 24, 1999 at a difficult moment on the international scene made the case for laughter.

"The only thing I can recommend at this stage is a sense of humor, an ability to see things in their ridiculous and absurd dimensions, to laugh at others and at ourselves, a sense of irony regarding everything that calls out for parody in this world."

Following his death in 2011, every year on the anniversary of his passing admirers of Václav Havel the world over wear short trousers in his memory. 

On December 18th roll up your trousers to honor Vaclav Havel

Organizers explained its historic significance along with its particular Czech sensibility.

The “Short Trousers for Václav Havel” initiative started in 2012 to honor the memory of Václav Havel with a gesture that was unique, memorable and easily achieved by supporters of this exceptional person in modern Czech and European history.  Short Trousers is a reference to Havel stepping into political life in 1989 and his inauguration to the presidency in visibly short trousers. He explained vainly that rather than a tailor’s mistake it was his habit to pull his pants up at every dramatic situation. To this, one might say global mythology of his short trousers, he added with a smile: "I must say that I am glad of it, more or less. From my point of view it’s a pretty gentle way of mocking myself."  An effort to honor such a respectable person by a gesture that points to this humorous episode might appear, at first sight, as a contradictory act. But the opposite is true. We believe that rolled up trousers on the anniversary of the death of Václav Havel is a gesture which is Czech, slightly satirical and which can be easily joined by anyone who wants to honor the memory of the last Czechoslovak and the first Czech president Havel in a cheerful way.

This method of spontaneous remembrance contrasts dramatically with how dictators forcibly demand that they be remembered on penalty of imprisonment for dissenting as has been the case following the 2016 death of Fidel Castro.  

Marking Vaclav Havel's 14th death anniversary wearing short trousers.

International Day of Nonviolence: Mohandas Gandhi born 156 years ago today on October 2, 1869

"Civil disobedience is the assertion of a right which law should give but which it denies." - Mohandas Gandhi

 

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was born on October 2, 1869, 156 years ago today, and his legacy continues to be passionately debated in India. The Economic Times, based in India, in 2021 published an editorial titled "Continuing relevance of Mohandas Gandhi" that highlights the challenges to Gandhian nonviolence today in his home country. 

“Gandhi is remembered for Ahimsa, non-violence. However, Gandhi’s Ahimsa was not passive acceptance of violence, but its active resistance by the force of moral purpose and mobilization of public opinion. Today, we have elected representatives who venerate Gandhi’s assassin, but few supporters who follow his example of opposing violence.”

This debate is not limited to India. The September 29, 2019 story in NPR "Gandhi Is 'An Object Of Intense Debate': A Biographer Reflects On The Indian Leader" contrasts the debate around Gandhi with how the Chinese don't debate Mao Zedong, or the Vietnamese don't debate Ho Chi Minh or the Pakistanis don't debate Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

Perhaps part of the reason for the lack of debate is that China and Vietnam are totalitarian dictatorships where such debate is forbidden, and Pakistan has been divided between periods of democratic and military rule in questioning the founder could prove unhealthy. India on the other hand has been a democracy through out its period of independence.

Gandhi liberated an entire subcontinent from imperial rule without firing a shot. The United Nations, beginning in 2007, has designated his birthday, October 2nd, as the International Day of Nonviolence. Nevertheless,  he did not win the Nobel Peace Prize and is recognized by the Nobel Committee as the "Missing Laureate."

In 2009 the United Nations released a one-dollar postal stamp of Mohandas Gandhi to commemorate his 140th birth anniversary. The stamp was designed by Miami-based artist Ferdie Pacheco.

 

He wasn't a rich man. He never held formal political office. He wasn't a saint or divine figure. He was just a man. An attorney who had taken a vow of poverty and celibacy. His full name was Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.   

 

Gandhi transformed himself into a principled strategic non-violent activist in South Africa at the end of the 19th century struggling against racist laws and policies of the colonial authorities. An important theoretical result of his South African campaign was the development of Satyagraha. 

 

Gandhi announced on September 11, 1906 in his newspaper Indian Opinion a contest to submit names to describe this movement. The final name was the fusion of two words as explained by Gandhi: “Truth (Satya) implies love, and firmness (agraha) engenders and therefore serves as a synonym for force…the Force which is born of Truth and love or nonviolence.”

He was the antithesis of Mao Zedong who took power and killed tens of millions to impose his political ideology on the Chinese. Marxist-Leninists view "truth" as something malleable and in the service of achieving power. 

Gandhi's explicit rejection of Marxist class struggle as hateful, his embrace of truth and love,
 and his critique that socialists and communists did nothing to solve problems are powerful:

The socialists and communists say, they can do nothing to bring about economic equality today. They will just carry on propaganda in its favor and to that end they believe in generating and accentuating hatred. They say, when they get control over the State, they will enforce equality. Under my plan the State will be there to carry out the will of the people, not to dictate to them or force them to do its will. I shall bring about economic equality through non-violence, by converting people to my point of view by harnessing the forces of love as against hatred. I will not wait till I have converted the whole society to my view but will straight away make a beginning with myself. It goes without saying that I cannot hope to bring about economic equality of my conception, if I am the owner of fifty motor-cars or even of ten bighas of land. For that I have to reduce myself to the level of the poorest of the poor.

Gandhi's description of the nature of a regime that sought to use violence to crush capitalism offers an excellent description of what has taken place in Marxist Leninist states that promised paradise but delivered the opposite:

It is my firm conviction that if the State suppressed capitalism by violence, it will be caught in the coils of violence itself, and will fail to develop non-violence at any time. The State represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. The individual has a soul, but as the State is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence. [...] It can be easily demonstrated that destruction of the capitalist must mean destruction in the end of the worker and as no human being is so bad as to be beyond redemption, no human being is so perfect as to warrant his destroying him whom he wrongly considers to be wholly evil.

This explains in large part the hostility from communists to Mohandas Gandhi's social political agenda, and many on the Left who share the Marxist belief in class struggle.

Gandhi's approach is reflected in what is considered his greatest act of nonviolence, the 1930 Salt March, in which he wrote two letters to his British adversary in India, Viceroy Lord Irwin, who he addressed as a friend in which he outlined both his grievances, and the act of civil disobedience he planned to carry out.

The contrast between those who advocate class struggle and those who advocate nonviolent resistance could not be more stark.

The heirs of Mao Zedong, who were inspired by his violent revolutionary tradition generated great suffering: Ernesto "Che"Guevara in Cuba,  the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, the Black Panther Party in the United States and Shining Path guerillas in Peru are but just four of many bloody examples.

Contrast these with the heirs of Mohandas Gandhi, who were inspired by his non-violent resistance to injustice and the good they achieved:  Martin Luther King Jr. in the United States,  Steve Biko in South Africa, Abdul Ghaffar Khan in Pakistan, Oswaldo Payá Sardiñas in Cuba, Vaclav Havel in Czechoslovakia, Lech Walesa in Poland, and Corazon Aquino in the Philippines are but just seven of many inspirational examples.

Mohandas Gandhi changed political protests and empowered millions with Satyagraha and the use of strategic nonviolence to battle powerful and violent regimes and great injustices in an effective manner that frustrates those who want to preserve or change the status quo using violence.

Today, as we witness Cubans nonviolently defying the communist dictatorship in Cuba, the legacy of Gandhi continues to shake the foundations of tyrannies around the world.

Nonviolent resistance does not mean the absence of violence. It is a courageous decision to challenge the oppressors using nonviolent means. Telling the truth and resisting a violent adversary with nonviolent means is not without risk, but it has a greater chance of success than violent resistance. Oswaldo Payá spoke truth to power on July 20, 2012, denouncing the fraudulent change of the dictatorship and offering a vision of real change in Cuba.

"The Christian Liberation Movement (MCL) and the opposition do not kill, sabotage or exclude, everyone knows that. Our motto is Liberty and Life. We do not want power for ourselves; we want peace and civil rights for all, because where there are no rights there is no justice. We seek only the power of the people, popular sovereignty, as Martin Luther King did, remember? Power to the people!... We denounce institutionalized corruption. Those who have power declare us enemies and do not compete with the opposition but rather sentence it, stigmatize it and annihilate it." ... "The peaceful, logical and fair solution that can lead to change and genuine dialogue is to recognize these rights. Enough of reactionary justifications that say that the people are not ready, that they do not want change. Do you think that fifty-four years without freedom and without rights are not enough? Others say that the people do not want rights, what an insult! Others may say that many Cubans want this government. I do not believe it, but in any case no Cuban can decide what they want in this environment. With these laws and with this system, Cubans cannot choose who they want to govern them, what system to have. We demand rights for all, without hatred or offense, with justice. Everyone knows that not even the National People's Assembly can decide freely, it also receives orders. This will change only when they are elected by the people, only then will they obey the people. That is our demand. We continue to call on all Cubans, no matter how they think or where they come from, to be part of the solution and the changes. Only the people can do that. Why say no to our rights? Why elitism? Philosophies and theologies? What oppresses us is fear, intolerance and the determination of a group to maintain absolute power. Let us abandon pretense! Let us take the path of the people, which is the path of democracy."

This vision is still relevant today, and the price Payá had to pay for speaking the truth to power and acting accordingly cost him his life and Harold Cepero two days later, on July 22, 2012, when both were murdered by agents of the Cuban dictatorship. They were killed because with their truth telling and their non-violent resistance they threatened the continuity of the dictatorship.

Nonviolence and it's culture of life is a force more powerful, and it offers an alternative to war that threatens humanity's existence with its culture of death.