영어명문 / Non-cooperation with Non-violence by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (마하트마 간디_정의와 자존심을 쟁취해 낼 때까지)

영어명문 / Non-cooperation with Non-violence by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (마하트마 간디_정의와 자존심을 쟁취해 낼 때까지)

Non-cooperation with Non-violence by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

What is this non-cooperation, about which you have heard much,

and why do we want to offer this non-cooperation?

I have been told that non-cooperation is unconstitutional.

I venture to deny that it is unconstitutional.

On the contrary, I hold that non-cooperation is a just and religious doctrine;

it is the inherent right of every human being and it is perfectly constitutional.

A great lover of the British Empire has said that under the British constitution

even a successful rebellion is perfectly constitutional and he quotes historical instances, which I cannot deny, in support of his claim. I do not claim any constitutionality for a rebellion successful or otherwise, so long as that rebellion means in the ordinary sense of the term, what it does mean, namely, wresting justice by violent means. On the contrary, I have said it repeatedly to my countrymen that violence, whatever end it may serve in Europe, will never serve us in India.

I tell you that whist my friend believes also in the doctrine of violence and has adopted the doctrine of non-violence as a weapon of the weak, I believe in the doctrine of non-violence as a weapon of the strongest. I believe that a man is the strongest soldier for daring to die unarmed with his breast bare before the enemy. So much for the non-violence part of non-cooperation. I therefore, venture to suggest to my learned countrymen that so long as the doctrine of non-cooperation remains non-violent, so long there is nothing unconstitutional in that doctrine.

I ask further, is it unconstitutional for me to say to the British Government 'I refuse to serve you'? Is it unconstitutional for our worthy Chairman to return with every respect all the titles that he has ever held from the Government? Is it unconstitutional for any parent to withdraw his children from a Government or aided school? Is it unconstitutional for a lawyer to say 'I shall no longer support the arm of the law so long as that arm of law is used not to raise me but to debase me'? Is it unconstitutional for a civil servant or for a judge to say, 'I refuse to serve a Government which does not wish to respect the wishes of the whole people'?

I ask, is it unconstitutional for a policeman or for a soldier to tender his resignation when he knows that he is called to serve a Government which traduces his own countrymen? Is it unconstitutional for me  to go to the agriculturist, and say to him 'it is not wise for you to pay any taxes, if these taxes are used by the Government not to raise you but to weaken you'? I hold and I venture to submit, that there is nothing unconstitutional in it. What is more, I have done every one of these things in my life and nobody has questioned the constitutional character of it.

I submit that in the whole plan of non-cooperation, there is nothing unconstitutional. But I do venture to suggest that it will be highly unconstitutional in the midst of this unconstitutional Government, - in the midst of a nation which has built up its magnificent constitution, - for the people of India to become weak and to crawl on their belly - it will be highly unconstitutional for the people of India to pocket every insult that is offered to them; it is highly unconstitutional for the 70millions of Mohammedans of India to submit to a violent wrong done to their religion; it is highly unconstitutional for the whole of India to sit still and cooperate with an unjust Government which has trodden under its feet the honour of the Punjab.

I say to my countrymen so long as you have a sense of honour and so long as you wish to remain the descendants and defenders of the noble traditions that have been handed to you for generations after generations; it is unconstitutional for you not to non-cooperate and unconstitutional for you to cooperate with a Government which has become so unjust ass our Government has become. I am not anti-English; I am not anti-British; I am not anti any Government; but I am anti-untruth - anti-humbug and anti-unjustice. So long as the Government spells injustice, it may regard me as its enemy, implacable enemy.

Until we have wrung justice, and until we have wrung our self-respect from unwilling hands and from unwilling pens there can be no cooperation. Our Shastras say and I say so with the greatest deference to all the greatest religious preceptors of India but without fear of contradiction, that our Shastras teach us that there shall be no cooperation between injustice and justice, between an unjust man and a justice-loving man, between truth and untruth. Cooperation is a duty only so long as Government protects your honour, and non- cooperation is an equal duty when the Government instead of protecting robs you of your honour. That is the doctrine of non-cooperation.

 

[어휘] *unconstitutional: 헌법에 위배되는, 위법의(=illegal) *hold = think, believe *inherent = innate, inborn (타고난) *in support of: ~을 뒷받침하는 *constitutionality: 합법성, 합헌성 *wrest: 애써 손에 넣다, 쟁취하다 *descendant: 자손, 후예 *generations after generations: 대대로 *spell = mean, stand for *regard A as B: A 를 B로 간주하다 *implacable: 화해가기 어려운 *wrung: wring(애써 쟁취하다)의 과거분사 *unwilling: 마음이 내키지 않는, 친하지 않는 *Shastra: 힌두교 성전 *preceptor = teacher(여기서는 '지도자') *without fear of contradiction: 반박이 나오리라는 두려움 없이, 즉 자신있게 *rob A of B: A로 부터 B를 빼앗다.

 

저는 비 협력 운동이 헌법에 위배되는 행위란 말을 들어왔습니다. 저는 위헌 행위라는 그 말을 감히 부정하고자 합니다. 아니, 비 협력 운동은 정당하고 종교적인 교리라고 주장합니다. 그것은 모든 인간의 타고난 권리이며 전적으로 합헌적인 것입니다. 대영 제국을 매우 사랑하는 한 애국자께서 영국 헌법하에서는 반란이 성공하면 그것조차도 완전히 합헌적인 것이라고 말하면서 그 주장을 뒷받침할 만한, 부인할 수 없는, 역사적인 사례를 인용하고 있습니다. 저는 반란이 보통의 의미를 뜻하는 한, 즉 폭력적인 수단에 의해 정의를 탈취하는 것일 때, 그 반란의 성패를 불문하고 그의 합헌성 여부를 따지자는 것이 아닙니다. 오히려, 나는, 폭력이 유럽에서는 어떠한 목적에 이용되는지는 모르나, 인도에서는 결코 쓸모가 없다는 것을 동포 여러분께 되풀이 해서 말씀드려 왔습니다.

저는 여러 동포들께 말씀 드리 노니 여러분들이 명예심을 갖고 대대로 이어져 온 숭고한 전통의 수호자이자 자손들로 남아 있기를 원하는 한, 우리의 현 정부처럼 매우 정의롭지 못하게 되어 버린 정부에 협력거부를 하지 않는 일과 협력하는 일은 다같이 모두 위헌적인 행위인 것입니다. 본인은 영국인들 싫어하지도 않고 반영주의자도 아니며, 어떠한 정부에도 반대하는 사람은 아닙니다. 다만 저는 거짓과 속임수와 부정을 반대할 뿐입니다. 정부당국이 부정을 초래하는 한, 그들이 본인을 그들의 적으로, 화해할 수 없는 적으로 간주해도 좋습니다.

우리가 저들의 내키지 않는 손길과 펜대로부터 정의와 우리의 자존심을 쟁취해 낼 때까지 협력이란 있을 수 없습니다. 우리의 힌두교 성전에도 나와 있거니와, 저도 또한 인도의 모든 위대한 종교 지도자들에게 최대의 경의를 표하면서, 그리고 모순되지 않는다는 확신을 가지고 그렇게 말씀드립니다. 즉, 우리의 성전은 부정과 정의, 부당한 사람과 정의를 사랑하는 사람, 진실과 허위 사이에는 협력이란 것이 있을 수 없다고 가르치고 있다고, 협력이란 정부가 여러분의 명예를 보호해주는 경우에 한해 여러분의 의무인 것이며, 정부가 여러분의 명예를 보호하지 않고 그것을 빼앗아 갈 때 비 협력하는 것 또한 똑같은 의무인 것입니다. 그것이 바로 비 협력주의 교리인 것입니다.