Godrej, Farah. "Nonviolence and Gandhi's Truth: A Method for Moral and Political Arbitration". The Review of Politics, Vol.68, No.2 (2006): 287-317.

Godrej, Farah. "Nonviolence and Gandhi's Truth: A Method for Moral and Political Arbitration". The Review of Politics, Vol.68, No.2 (2006): 287-317.

• The author argues that Gandhi, particularly his work on civic nonviolence, provides a useful framework for dealing with multiple ideas of truth or multiple conceptions of the good in a plural society without giving up on the search for a singular truth, as multiculturalism would suggest. The author asserts that his techniques apply here and offer new perspective not provided by previous Western philosophers (288).
• Gandhi's conception of truth is based in traditional Hindu philosophy and the idea of 'advaita', or the oneness of God. The only truth for Gandhi has the divine truth, and truth could only be attained when one meditated to the point of achieving oneness with God and seeing the divine truth; it cannot come through pure logic (289).
• Without this enlightenment, men can only grasp a limited or partial truth, which may be correct from a certain perspective but contained only a part of the divine truth. Gandhi compares this process to blind men touching different parts of an element, when one describes it as thick and column-like and other retorts it is snake-like, they are both relatively true, but miss the full picture (290).
• Importantly, the limited or relative truths are not false, but they are only elements of a larger notion of absolute truth, which cannot be seen without full enlightenment and transcendence (290).
• Although the achievement of Absolute Truth is practically impossible, Gandhi says that the quest towards this goal is a necessary part of the human experience. That being said, there is not a single trajectory towards this absolute truth, but many potential paths and even more possibilities for error (291).
• Gandhi defines politics broadly, as a scope of activities in both public and private life directed towards social and moral progress. He specifically rejects European concepts of politics as competition, calling this 'power politics', as separate and distinct from 'real politics' (291).
• For Gandhi, politics is so broad and mixes with other categories of life because the goal of achieving truth is common among all these areas. Politics is defined by seeking and actualizing the truth as currently perceived, meaning that it must necessarily include all those areas in which the 'truth' -- even a limited understand of the truth -- can be acted upon (292-293).
• The requirement within Gandhi's conception of politics that people must act upon their conceptions of the truth raises potential issues if that conception is misguided or false. Gandhi response to this challenge by introducing the requirement of non-violence. Because no person can know the entire truth, they cannot reasonably punish another and therefore non-violence must be required in society and politics (294).
• The broader definition of the Hindi term 'ahimsa', provides a more expansive response to how society should deal with this epistemological question. Since the term implies deep love, forgiveness, and compassion, the appropriate response of society should be a compassion and self-reflection for other potential relative truths and political action based on that understanding (295).
• The deep self-reflection  and inner conscious cultivated by the practice of ahimsa allows the individual access to unique divine insight into the nature of limited truths. This awakened conscious from the reflective practice of ahimsa allows the individual to successfully and correctly decide between claims of truth or interpretations of the good (298).
• Importantly, the practice of ahimsa does not allow unique access into the mysteries of absolute truth. It is a practical guideline in life for determining what actions constitute limited truths in everyday political life (298).
• Although ahimsa is the tool for determining correct political actions and limited truths, the methods of realizing and practicing these truths is 'satyagraha', a combination of civil disobedience techniques which allow for nonviolent resistance to policies in opposition to the truth determined by ahimsa (299).
• Gandhi's ideas about ahimsa and its adoption take place within specific cosmological and religious assumptions based on Hinduism, raising concerning about its widespread applicability in secular systems. Moreover, as a Hindu and Jain concept ahimsa seems unsuitable for selecting those forms of religion as correct in the first place. The author proposes overcoming this by adopting elements of ahimsa as a civic policy, without requiring the aspects of ahimsa as a religious creed (300).
• The consistency of this approach with Gandhi's overall philosophy is debatable. He seems to have largely rejected any idea that standards of morality should be lowered or changed to fit political demands or that ahimsa should ever be realized on anything other than an individual scale. However, that doesn't super matter here (300-301).
• Dr. Godrej extracts three elements of the theory of ahimsa which can be adapted into a secular context: a recognition and emphasis on personal fallibility and potential for error; a capacity for self-scrutiny and changing opinions; a willingness to endure suffering through the active expression of truth in a non-violent manner (301-305).
• These principles can be followed by any citizen anywhere as a mean for seeking out the truth in a nonviolent manner among plural ideas. Moreover, it does not require the adoption of ahimsa as a way of life, as the expression of these behaviors only needs to exist in the political sphere as defined by the individual (306).
• The author provides a potential description of how the Gandhian method of dispute settlement could occur in a formalized political setting. It contains three elements within the process: the reflection on the potential of one's own convictions to be wrong, along with the full consideration of merits in the opponent's argument; engagement on a purely rational and moral basis with the moral and political implications of an opponent's beliefs; willingness by the individual to undergo punishment or suffering out of conviction for one's political beliefs (307-308).
• To Gandhi self-suffering through the practice of satyagraha is a political act demonstrating strength and commitment to the belief in truth. This emphasis on commitment to truth in the face of harm by others separates from acts such as self-mutilation, which Gandhi does not regard as satyagraha (309).
• Different kinds of self-suffering are appropriate in different situations. For example, one is not expected to be willing to endure death or beatings for opposition to restrictions on certain books, whereas the expectations for satyagraha for opposition to something like slavery would be much higher (310).
• Dr. Godrej seeks to compare the Gandhian approach to dealing with pluralism in an open society with the dominant Rawlsian approach. The Rawlsian approach recognizes disagreement over perceptions of the good as an essential and natural element of any free society, therefore any theory of common beliefs should seek not to make moral judgements -- which someone will undoubtedly disagree with -- but to find and develop opinions within common ground (311).
• Very much unlike Gandhi, the goal of philosophy and theory in the Rawlsian perception is the creation of common ground and consensus from which different political traditions can constructively engage. It does not view truth as a goal of political philosophy, whereas Gandhi holds that attain truth is the only goal (312).
• Rawls places the emphasis in political theory on logical structure and sound argument from commonly agreed principles. Gandhi, however, ties politics essentially with action and actualization, demanding that principles and theories be tested by action, regardless of logical soundness or inconsistencies (312).
• The Gandhian method of engagement with a plural society is more accessible than the Rawlsian method. Whereas only a select few people with the experience and interest can engage in the theory-construction recommended by Rawls, whereas Gandhi allows mass engagement in the political determination of truth (313, 315).
• The Rawlsian model is very limited in the range of material it can engage with. The necessity of first establishing common ground and the rejection of fundamental moral or ethical claims on the part of the philosopher mean that really key political questions cannot be processed using Rawls. Because of its focus on truth, the Gandhian method can deal with a broader range of political questions (313-314).
• The emphasis within Gandhi's philosophy on self-reflection, questions one's own beliefs, and nonviolence mitigate many of the issues that Rawls fears would stem from moralist arguments within a plural society. The respect intrinsic in ahimsa makes sure that violence does not occur or if it does no retaliation will take place, and is conducive to continue and respectful discussion of ideas (315-316).
• Dr. Godrej suggests that such comparative political thought engaging with philosophers from radically different positions is beneficial, and that the above piece serves as an example of the potential benefits of expanding and enriching the philosophical and political worlds of the Eastern and Western traditions with ideas from the other (317).