Let me turn to a brief discussion of some basic aspects of the philosophy of non-violence.

First, it must be emphasized that non-violent resistance is not a method for cowards; it does resist. If one uses this method because he is afraid or merely because he lacks the instruments of violence, he is not truly non-violent. This is why Gandhi often said that if cowardice is the only alternative to violence, it is better to fight. He made this statement conscious of the fact that there is always another alternative: no individual or group need submit to any wrong, nor need they use violence to right the wrong; there is the way of non-violent resistance. This is ultimately the way of the strong man. The method is passive physically, but strongly active spiritually. It is not passive non-resistance to evil, it is active non-violent resistance to evil.

A second basic fact that characterizes non-violence is that it does not seek to defeat or humiliate the opponent, but to win his friendship and understanding. The non-violent resister must often express his protest through non-cooperation or boycotts, but he realizes that these are not ends themselves; they are merely means to awaken a sense of moral shame in the opponent. The end is redemption and reconciliation.

Which one of the following is correct according to your reading of the passage?

Question

Let me turn to a brief discussion of some basic aspects of the philosophy of non-violence.

First, it must be emphasized that non-violent resistance is not a method for cowards; it does resist. If one uses this method because he is afraid or merely because he lacks the instruments of violence, he is not truly non-violent. This is why Gandhi often said that if cowardice is the only alternative to violence, it is better to fight. He made this statement conscious of the fact that there is always another alternative: no individual or group need submit to any wrong, nor need they use violence to right the wrong; there is the way of non-violent resistance. This is ultimately the way of the strong man. The method is passive physically, but strongly active spiritually. It is not passive non-resistance to evil, it is active non-violent resistance to evil.

A second basic fact that characterizes non-violence is that it does not seek to defeat or humiliate the opponent, but to win his friendship and understanding. The non-violent resister must often express his protest through non-cooperation or boycotts, but he realizes that these are not ends themselves; they are merely means to awaken a sense of moral shame in the opponent. The end is redemption and reconciliation.

Which one of the following is correct according to your reading of the passage?

Accepted Answer

The correct option is 4:
Cowards cannot go for non-violent resistance. This statement is directly supported by the passage, which fundamentally addresses the misconception that non-violent resistance is an easy path chosen out of fear or weakness. The text explicitly states, "First, it must be emphasized that non-violent resistance is not a method for cowards; it does resist." This principle establishes non-violence as an active, courageous, and spiritually strong method of confronting evil, which is the antithesis of cowardice. Furthermore, the passage notes that if someone employs this method due to fear or a lack of violent means, "he is not truly non-violent." Therefore, non-violent resistance demands inner strength, moral conviction, and spiritual activity, qualities which a coward, by definition, lacks. The passage solidifies this by calling non-violent resistance "ultimately the way of the strong man," making it impossible for cowards to authentically practice this method.

The incorrect option is 1:
The non-violent resistance is not a method for the brave. This option is incorrect because it directly contradicts the central thesis of the passage. The text repeatedly emphasizes that non-violent resistance requires immense courage and strength, stating it "is ultimately the way of the strong man." By saying it is not for the brave, this option misrepresents the spiritual strength and moral conviction that the philosophy of non-violence demands.

The incorrect option is 2:
It is better to fight rather than being non-violent. This statement misrepresents the context provided by Gandhi in the passage. Gandhi's view, as cited, was conditional: he said, "if cowardice is the only alternative to violence, it is better to fight." However, the passage immediately follows this by stating that there is *always* another alternative—the way of non-violent resistance, which is superior to both cowardice and violence. Therefore, the passage argues that genuine non-violence is better than fighting, unless the choice is between fighting and merely submitting out of fear (cowardice).

The incorrect option is 3:
The discussion in the passage is about the socio-psycho aspects of violence. This option is incorrect because the passage is explicitly about "the philosophy of non-violence." While the text touches upon the psychological aspect of non-violence (e.g., it is "strongly active spiritually" and seeks to awaken a "sense of moral shame"), its primary focus is not violence itself, but the principles, characteristics, and spiritual demands of non-violent *resistance*. The passage contrasts non-violence with cowardice and details its goals (redemption and reconciliation), confirming its focus is on the moral philosophy, not a broad sociological or psychological analysis of violence.