instance, will have to
walk to his victim over the dead body of her defender; in the second, he
has but to overpower the defender; for it is assumed that the cannon of
propriety in the second instance will be satisfied when the defender has
fought to the extent of his physical valour. In the first instance, as
the defender has matched his very soul against the mere body of the
tyrant, the odds are that the soul in the latter will be awakened, and
the girl would stand an infinitely greater chance of her honour being
protected than in any other conceivable circumstance, barring of course,
that of her own personal courage.

If we are unmanly today, we are so, not because we do not know how to
strike, but because we fear to die. He is no follower of Mahavira, the
apostle of Jainism, or of Buddha or of the Vedas, who being afraid to
die, takes flight before any danger, real or imaginary, all the while
wishing that somebody else would remove the danger by destroying the
person causing it. He is no follower of Ahimsa who does not care a straw
if he kills a man by inches by deceiving him in trade, or who would
protect by force of arms a few cows and make away with the butcher or
who, in order to do a supposed good to his country, does not mind
killing off a few officials. All these are actuated by hatred, cowardice
and fear. Here the love of the cow or the country is a vague thing
intended to satisfy one's vanity, or soothe a stinging conscience.

Ahimsa truly understood is in my humble opinion a panacea for all evils
mundane and extra-mundane. We can never overdo it. Just at present we
are not doing it at all. Ahimsa does not displace the practice of other
virtues, but renders their practice imperatively necessary before it can
be practised even in its rudiments. Mahavira and Buddha were soldiers,
and so was Tolstoy. Only they saw deeper and truer into their
profession, and found the secret of a true, happy, honourable and godly
life. Let us be joint sharers with these teachers, and this land of ours
will once more be the abode of gods.

FOOTNOTE:

[4] The _Modern Review_, October, 1916.

THE MORAL BASIS OF CO-OPERATION[5]

The only claim I have on your indulgence is that some months ago I
attended with Mr. Ewbank a meeting of mill-hands to whom he wanted to
explain the principles of co-operation. The chawl in which they were
living was as filthy as it well could be. Recent rains had made matters
worse. And I mu