Conversation Between Gandhi & Bin Laden – by Bhikhu Parekh

Conversation Between Gandhi & Bin Laden – by Bhikhu Parekh

By Bhikhu Parekh

November 5, 2020

If he were alive today, how might Mahatma Gandhi, the greatest apostle of non-violence, challenge Osama Bin Laden’s worldview? Bhikhu Parekh is Vice-President of The Gandhi Foundation, a professor of political philosophy, a Labour peer, and the author of three books on Gandhi. This article first appeared in Prospect Magazine in April 2004.

Originally published at

Bhikhu Parekh’s preface

Like millions around the world, I found the atrocities of 9/11 abhorrent and utterly condemn such acts of terror. Despite the war against terror, we continue to see more horrors such as that in Madrid. What drives the bombers? How do they live with their deeds? Is there no alternative to the cycle of violence? No one is better qualified to advise on this than Mahatma Gandhi, the great apostle of non-violence. My imaginary exchange between him and Bin Laden tries to do two things: to comprehend at least part of the twisted worldview that inspires Bin Laden, for we cannot defeat it without understanding it; and second, to explore a neglected alternative. My Bin Laden is an intellectual construct, a metaphor, referring not so much to the real man as to a more generic pro-terror radical Islamist.

Dear Mahatma Gandhi

2nd October 2003

Ever since my followers attacked the American embassy in Kenya, the USS Cole in Yemen, and later the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon in Washington DC, they and I have been declared enemies of the civilised world who can be hunted, tortured and killed like wild animals. I was not surprised by the American reaction, but I was dismayed by the hostile reactions of some of my fellow Muslims. I owe it to them to explain why we did what we did, why we remain unmoved by the calumnies heaped upon us and why we might do it again. Since every political act is unintelligible outside its historical context, I must begin with some history.

Islam is a great religion, continuous with and completing the other two Abrahamic religions. It accepts them as genuine and true religions, reveres their prophets and has always been tolerant and respectful of them. Thanks to the moral and spiritual force of its profound truths, Islam, a late historical arrival, was quickly able to win over the willing allegiance of millions of people in different parts of the world. It inspired its followers with such zeal and fervour that their armies chalked up conquests against all odds, making it the second most powerful world religion. Christians, who have long been jealous of its appeal and resentful of its power, tried to discredit and undermine it by mocking its beliefs, vilifying its prophet and mounting crusades against it. Islam survived all these and built up large empires, the great Ottoman empire being the last.

With the rise of the modern world, Britain, France and other European countries began to industrialise. Driven by the lust for power and profit on which capitalism and imperialism is based, they conquered large parts of the world and set about reshaping their colonies in their image. Since Muslim societies had betrayed their religious principles and become corrupt and degenerate, they were easy prey. Being better armed, the British and French overwhelmed the Ottoman empire, broke it up into artificial political units, set up corrupt rulers, kept them weak and divided, and used them to perpetuate their power. After the 1939-1945 war, they deprived the Palestinians of their homeland, handed over a large part to the Jews, and created a festering source of injustice in the shape of Israel. Muslim societies have always included large Jewish communities and have been more protective of them than European societies. But giving the Jews their own state, at Palestinian expense, and in the heart of the Arab world, was provocative and unjust.

As the US replaced the weakened Europeans in the 1950s, it continued this project and designed a more subtle empire of its own. In the name of defending the west against the Soviet threat, it set up and supported puppet regimes in many parts of the world, especially the Muslim societies of the middle east upon whose oil it had come to depend for its prosperity. It was even more partial to Israel than the Europeans were, devoting much of its foreign aid budget to it, arming it, and encouraging its expansionist ambitions. The collapse of the Soviet Union gave the US an illusion of omnipotence and removed all restraints on its hubris. The US today is determined to Americanise the world and restructure every society along secular, capitalist, liberal and consumerist lines. Its troops are stationed in 120 countries, and pressure their governments to do its bidding. It controls major international economic and political institutions and uses them to pursue its interests. When that does not work, it resorts to bribery and blackmail to get its way. And when even that fails, it acts unilaterally in disregard of international law and institutions. No government is beyond its reach. Although the current Republican administration is unashamed in its imperialist designs, the previous Clinton administrations were no better. They followed the same policy, albeit relying more on economic and political pressure than on the threat of military might.

Although the American empire must be fought in every part of the world, I am mainly concerned to liberate Muslim societies, not only because I belong to them but also because they constitute the weakest link in the imperial chain and my success there will set an example and inspire others. My goal is fourfold: to get the Americans out of Muslim societies, to destroy Israel as a separate Jewish state and create a free Palestine in which Jews can live as a protected minority, to remove corrupt American stooges in Muslim societies and restructure the latter along truly Islamic principles, and finally to restore the earlier glory of Islam by uniting the umma and ensuring Muslim rule in such erstwhile Muslim countries as Palestine, Bukhara, Lebanon, Pakistan, Bang-ladesh, Chad, Eritrea, Somalia, the Philippines, Burma, South Yemen, Tashkent and Andalucia.

Violence is the only way to achieve these goals because this is the only language the US understands. Our violence has to be based on terror because ill-equipped Muslims can never match American might in open combat. Although our terrorist violence is primarily directed against the “icons of US military and economic power,” one cannot be so fastidious as to exclude civilians. The US itself has never spared civilians in its wars on us: nearly 500,000 Iraqi children died as a result of US-inspired sanctions. US citizens have freely elected their governments, often supported their policies (or at least failed to protest against and dissociate themselves from them in large numbers), and are directly or indirectly complicit in their government’s deeds.

I should make two additional points. First, our terror is reactive. We are only responding to the terrorist violence of the US. Americans rob us of our wealth and oil, attack our religion, trample upon our dignity, treat us as pawns in their global chess game, and have the moral impertinence to call us terrorists when we are only defending ourselves against their terrorism.

Second, I distinguish between “commendable” and “reprehensible” terrorism. Terrorism to abolish tyranny, external domination, corrupt rulers and traitors belongs to the first, and one that imposes or perpetuates these evils belongs to the second. My followers neither kill like cowards nor make personal gains from their actions. They give up the ordinary pleasures-careers, families, even their lives-and show by their self-sacrifice that they are guided by the highest of motives. Our terrorism is moral and religious, not criminal in nature as our western critics claim. Our consciences are clear, and I say to my fellow Muslims that to kill the Americans and their allies – civilians and military – is an individual duty for every Muslim.



Dear Osama

1st November 2003

Listening to you, my brother Osama, I was strongly reminded of my dialogue with my terrorist countrymen, which began in London in 1909 and continued almost until my death. As in their case, so in yours, I find your reasoning perverse and your glorification of violence utterly abhorrent.

Whether you realise it or not, you think and talk like an imperialist. You present a sanitised picture of Islamic history. All conquests and empires involve bloodshed, oppression and injustice, and yours was no different. Muslim rulers in India destroyed Hindu temples, looted Hindu property and converted vast masses by a combination of inducement and force. They also destroyed traditional African cultures and social structures and sought to obliterate memories of their pre-Islamic past. And although they treated Christians and Jews better, they never granted them equal citizenship. Since all this occurred a long time ago, there is no point in lamenting it and apportioning blame, but we do have a duty to acknowledge the full truth of the past and resolve never to repeat it. You do not do this, and are even determined to revive Muslim rule in the countries you mention. You attack European imperialism because it ended yours, and you attack Americans because they are preventing you from reviving it. An imperialist yourself, you have no moral right to attack the imperialist designs of others.

You keep talking about the truly Islamic society whose glory you want to revive. I do not find it at all appealing, and nor do most of your fellow Muslims. You want to combine a centralised state, an industrialised economy and nuclear weapons with a set of Islamic values and practices. This is an incoherent enterprise. Once you opt for the economic, political and other institutions of modernity, you cannot escape their logic. You would become more and more like a western society and get sucked into a process of globalisation and thus into the American empire, precisely what you say you do not want. Furthermore, these institutions cannot be sustained without creating an appropriate culture, radically transforming social, educational and other institutions, and undermining the very religious and moral values you cherish. You want to create powerful Muslim societies that are capable of standing up to the west. But if you are really serious about creating a good society, you should stop measuring yourself against the west. You should start instead with the great values of Islam, relate them to the circumstances and aspirations of your people, and assimilate those western values and institutions that will enrich your societies.

As you admit, Muslim societies have become degenerate, but your explanation for this is wrong. They are degenerate because they are static, inegalitarian, patriarchal, averse to change, and lacking the spirit of scientific inquiry, individual freedom and the capacity for collective and co-operative action. In these areas we have much to learn from the west. I have myself been a grateful student of the west, learning much from its liberal, Christian and socialist traditions and suitably integrating it into Indian ways of life and thought. A crude division of the world into west and east is unhelpful because it homogenises each and obstructs a mutually beneficial dialogue.

You say that the west is spiritually empty and call its citizens infidels. Although the west is consumerist and militarist, many of its citizens have a strong social conscience. The concern for the poor, the welfare state, the desire to create a just society and the pressures for global justice and humanitarian intervention are all examples of this. Religion matters a great deal to many in the west, and some of them are keen to enter into a dialogue with and borrow from non-Christian religions. You are wrong to think that Muslims have a monopoly on spirituality. Spirituality is not about how often you pray, fast and visit the mosque, but about serving your fellow humans and living by the great virtues of humility, benevolence, tolerance and universal love. I see little evidence of this in you.

You seem to believe that Islam is perfect. But all religions contain truths and errors. Moreover, you, Osama, claim to know the true principles of Islam better than anyone else, and brook no dissent. You rule out the creative adaptation of these principles to a world vastly different to the one in which they were first articulated. And by asking the Islamic state to impose them on its subjects, you deny the latter their basic religious freedom. This is the surest way to corrupt both your religion and the state and to arrest the moral and spiritual growth of your people. A truly religious person wants to live by the values and beliefs of his religion. If the state has to enforce them on him, then clearly his religion has ceased to have any meaning for him. A religiously based state is a sacrilege, an insult to God and to the human soul.

You blame the Europeans or Americans and never Islam for your sad predicament. You forget the simple truth that no outsider can get a direct or indirect foothold in a society unless it is itself rotten, just as no human body succumbs to a disease unless it has lost its regenerative resources. Stop blaming others, and concentrate your energies on rebuilding and revitalising your societies by educating and organising the masses. You are right to say that many Muslim rulers are corrupt stooges of external powers, but you forget that our rulers are not an alien species but a magnified version of ourselves. We create them in our image and are responsible for what they are and do. You, Osama, have no patience, no plan of social regeneration, no desire to deal with the deeper causes of social decay. You rely on a tightly knit group of religious activists to transform society. But once in power, they too will become corrupt, arrogant and dictatorial.

While repeatedly attacking the Americans, you also keep attacking the Jews and have often expressed not only anti-Zionist but offensive antisemitic sentiments. I could not disagree more. Unlike you, I have lived and worked with Jews, admire their intellectual and moral qualities, and know them and their history well. Some Jews became my closest friends in South Africa, and one of them bought a farm where we set up an experiment in communal living. I call the Jews the “untouchables of Christianity.” Although they are an integral part of the Judeo-Christian tradition, they were for centuries ostracised, shunned, humiliated and subjected by Christians to degrading treatment, of which the Nazi atrocity was only the most horrendous example.

I well know that the victims of yesterday can easily become the oppressors of tomorrow, and use their past suffering to excuse and even legitimise their brutal treatment of others. Israel has in recent years behaved in an unjust manner with the support of the US. Its misdeeds must be challenged, but you must not be insensitive to the effect of their past suffering on the Jews. They are naturally haunted by their bitter historical memories, feel profoundly insecure and sometimes find it difficult to trust even well-meaning outsiders. They have at last found a home and understandably feel intensely possessive about it. Their new home rendered the Palestinians homeless and caused them immense suffering. We need to find ways of doing justice to both. I was keen on a bi-national state of Jews and Arabs just as I would have liked a united India. In spite of all my efforts to stop it, India was partitioned. I accepted it in the hope that once the two quarrelling brothers set up their separate homes and got their hostilities out of their systems, they would not only learn to coexist in peace but even perhaps revive their deeper bonds and draw closer. You, Osama, must accept the existence of Israel, give it the sense of security it needs, and work patiently towards getting it to appreciate the justice of the Palestinian cause. As long as you threaten it, you frighten its people and drive them into the arms of its most reactionary and militarist leaders. Sensible Israelis know that they have to live in the midst of Arab societies, and that the latter will not remain backward and divided for ever.

Finally I must turn to your terrorist methods. I find them unacceptable on pragmatic and moral grounds. They will not help you achieve your goals. They cannot drive away the Americans who will use their might to smash your terrorist camps and networks, as they have done in Afghanistan and elsewhere. They do not mind disregarding international law and even their own constitutional procedures, and you have no hope against such a determined opponent. Even if they were to go, your methods would not be able to defeat their indigenous collaborators, let alone revitalise Muslim societies. There is not a single example in history of terrorists creating a humane and healthy society. Today, Osama, you use terrorism against the Americans and Muslim rulers; tomorrow your own people will use it against you and claim the same justification for it. When will this vicious circle end?

I also have moral objections to your method. Human life is sacred, and taking it is inherently evil. Besides, however fallen a human being might be, he is never so degenerate that he cannot be won over or neutralised by organised moral pressure. Human beings do evil deeds because they are in the grip of evil ideas, or are driven by hatred, or because of the compulsions of their wider society which disposes them to do things they might personally disapprove of. Violence does not address any of these circumstances.

As I have shown by example, organised non-violent resistance is the only moral and effective way to fight evil. It appeals to the opponent’s sense of shared humanity, awakens his conscience, reassures him that he need fear no harm, and mobilises the power of public opinion. It also allows time for tempers to cool and reason to work, lifts both parties to a higher level of relationship, teases out what they share in common, avoids false polarisation, and leaves behind no lasting legacy of mutual hatred. Don’t play your opponent’s game and remain trapped in the chain of action and reaction. Take upon yourself the burden of his evil, become his conscience and transform the context of your conflict. I call this the surgery of the soul, purging the poison of hatred and mobilising the moral energies of the opponent for a common cause.

Take the case of the Palestinians. They have used violence. Israel has countered it with greater violence. The result is an increasing brutalisation of the two societies. Now consider what would happen if the Palestinians were to follow my advice. They would eschew all threats to Israeli citizens, acknowledge them as their brothers, appeal to their sense of justice and long history of humiliation, and get them to appreciate both the suffering they are causing to the Palestinians and the considerable damage they are doing to their own psyche and society. If necessary, they would mount well organised acts of non-violent resistance and civil disobedience to highlight their injustices and dare the Israeli government to do its worst.

I cannot imagine that any Israeli government, not even that of Ariel Sharon, would kill unarmed and peaceful protesters with the world watching. If it did, it would not only incur universal condemnation, including that of diaspora Jews, but also divide its own people. I am convinced too that some Israeli soldiers would disobey government orders, as some are already doing. Unlike the current wave of violence, peaceful protests would have the advantage of delegitimising Israeli violence, raising the morale and moral stature of Palestinians and mobilising world opinion in their favour.

You might say, as some of your associates have done, that non-violence comes easily to us Hindus and is alien to the Islamic tradition. This is not true. Hindus have a long tradition of violence, and are by temperament as violent a people as any other. It was only after a long campaign and examples of successful non-violence that I was able to bring them round to accepting it. As for Muslims, you should know that they too have a long tradition of non-violent resistance. The ferocious Pathans of the northwest frontier provinces of what is now Pakistan embraced it with great success under the guidance of my friend Abdul Gaffar Khan. No religion is inherently for or against violence. It is up to its leaders to interpret it appropriately and guide its followers accordingly.

With blessings and love

MK Gandhi

Dear Mahatma Gandhi

1st January 2004

I must confess that I had never before had a reason to read your writings or follow your life. You are not as well known in Muslim countries as you are in the west, and all I had heard was that you were a Hindu leader of India who could not command the loyalty of the Muslims and fought against the British by a passive and rather feminine method. But I was sufficiently interested by some of the things you said to go and read and reflect on your life and work. While I now see the situation a little differently, I remain unpersuaded.

You misrepresent your Indian experience and, like all moralists, extend it to societies where it does not apply. Since British forces did not occupy your country, they had to depend on local support, which naturally placed considerable constraints on them. The British people were ambivalent about the empire, and some were opposed to it. You could therefore always count on a sympathetic body of British opinion to press your case for independence. By the time you came to dominate the Indian political scene, the British were exhausted, initially by the 1914-1918 war and then by the great depression. The events leading up to the 1939-1945 war and that war itself debilitated them further. You were therefore in the fortunate position of confronting a weak opponent who had neither the will nor the means to continue to rule over your country. You should also recall that you lived at a time when there were several centres of power, each regulating the others, and none, not even the British empire, enjoyed complete mastery.

The historical context in which I have to operate could not be more different. It is dominated by a single power with a global reach, which feels triumphant after its victory in the cold war, and thinks that it can now do what it likes. Its economy is driven by an enormous appetite for profits and the consequent desire to turn the whole world into a safe market for American goods. Its political system is dominated by money and selfish pressure groups, it incarcerates more people than any other rich country, it has a larger class of the poor than any other rich country, it has launched more clandestine, proxy and open wars than any other-yet the US considers its form of government to be the best in the world, and insists without the slightest embarrassment that it has a right and a duty to export it to other countries. This formidable combination of self-righteousness, missionary spirit, national self-interest, moral myopia and overwhelming power in a single country has radically transformed the world. Your ideas, Mr Gandhi, belong to a world that is dead, and are of no help to those fighting against current injustices.

The Americans have to be checked in the interest of global peace, stability and justice. This requires not just military power but a superior vision of man and society that satisfies the deepest urges and aspirations of the human soul. Europe cannot provide this because it is part of the same western civilisation and because it is all too keen to share the spoils of the American empire. Only Islam offers an alternative. It has the vision of a truly good society and the will to realise it. It is also endowed with the requisite wealth, strength of numbers, and long historical experience of ruling over a multi-ethnic and multi-religious world. It is therefore vital that Muslim countries should unite, acquire nuclear weapons, take control of their oil wealth and lead the world in a better direction. You call this imperialism. I understand your fears and assure you that we do not seek to impose our views on others, let alone run their societies. We want to restore Islamic civilisation in the erstwhile Muslim countries, and are confident that its moral and spiritual vision will win over the allegiance of the rest of the world over time. The cold war was dominated by a clash between the two materialist ideologies of capitalism and communism. Islam provides a superior alternative to both, the future belongs to us.

You reject modernity, I don’t. The modern world is here to stay, has much to be said for it, and anyone opting out of it is doomed to impotence. I do not want an alternative to modernity as you do, but an alternative modernity, a society that draws on modern technology and places it in the service of Islam. I want nuclear weapons, the modern state, industrialisation and so on, without which my people would remain at the mercy of the west, but I do not want the modern secular, egalitarian and liberal culture with all its attendant evils of atheism, confused gender roles, promiscuity, homosexuality, selfishness, consumerism, and so on. Such a cultural synthesis, which gives modernity an Islamic soul, is possible and worth fighting for.

Unlike you I don’t consider violence inherently evil. I judge it on the basis of its goals and its ability to realise them. Your non-violent struggle was constantly shadowed by terrorist activities, which frightened and weakened the British and must be given as much credit for achieving Indian independence as your non-violence. Every method of struggle requires certain conditions for its success. Non-violence requires a decent opponent, freedom to mount protests, and a reasonably impartial media. You had all three; I don’t. We do not have the civil liberties you enjoyed. If we resorted to non-violent protests, the Americans and their stooges would infiltrate our ranks, create divisions, spread false stories, and, if all this failed, use force to maul us down. They would then use the pliant global media to manipulate public opinion in their favour.

If you need further proof, look at the ways in which the Americans and the British justified and continue to justify the recent war on Iraq. They solemnly announced that they had incontrovertible proof that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and they still can’t find them. When Hans Blix introduced a note of caution, he was vilified. Cautious reports of British and American intelligence services were deliberately doctored by politicians, who proved more dishonourable than their spies. We are not even told exactly how many Iraqi civilians died in the war. And as for the military casualties, no one is bothered-as if an Iraqi soldier’s life had no value. We are told little about the daily atrocities committed against Iraqi civilians by US soldiers, and none of the latter has so far been tried let alone punished. In the light of all this, there is absolutely no chance of success for non-violent protests. The world won’t even know what humiliations and atrocities were inflicted upon us, let alone exert pressure on our behalf. You, Mr Gandhi, had no answer when Martin Buber asked what advice you would give to the Jewish victims of Hitler’s camps. As he pointed out, where there is no witness, there is no martyrdom, only a pointless waste of life.

Unlike Hinduism, Islam takes a more charitable view of violence and sanctions and even enjoins it under certain circumstances. The prophet himself used violence, and so did his followers and other great Muslim religious and political leaders. Even if I were to plead for non-violence, it would not be accepted by my fellow-Muslims. The Pathan followers of Abdul Gaffar Khan used it only for a while, and then abandoned it in favour of violence. I see no other way to shake the might of the Americans.

Violence is how we got rid of the Soviets in Afghanistan. America understood this and gave us all the help we needed. And it is because of this that they are now scared of the same methods being used against them. As I have said on several occasions, the struggle against the Soviets was a profound “spiritual experience” for me and my fellow-fighters, and represented a decisive turning point in our way of thinking. It gave us enormous self-confidence, expanded our political horizon, helped us build a global network and enabled us to move beyond narrow, largely ethnic, Arab nationalism to the vision of a wider Islamic unity. I would rather stick to the method I and my followers have found successful than try yours. You keep telling me that I should not lower myself to the level of my opponent and should act on higher principles. Why? If others hit me, I hit back. If they harm me or my people, I harm them. Why should I endure the suffering involved in being my opponent’s redeemer? I am a follower of Prophet Muhammad, not Jesus Christ.



Dear Osama

30th January 2004

You advance the following propositions. First, Americans are embarked on an imperialist project to dominate the world. Second, Muslim societies should be reconstructed on the basis of the true principles of Islam. Third, this cannot be done without getting the Americans out of your societies and overthrowing their native collaborators. Fourth, only terrorist violence can achieve these goals.

As for the first argument, you are wrong to generalise about Americans. Some groups there fit your description, others don’t. Many Americans are deeply troubled by and critical of what their government is doing in their name, and have protested against the recent war in Iraq. Some of those who support the present administration do so because they are fearful after the events of 9/11. Their belief that their country was invulnerable to foreign attack has been shattered, and they live in fear of future attacks. Bush reassures them that his global war on terrorism will give them the security they crave, so they go along with him. As long as you keep talking the way you do, you reinforce their paranoia and support for Bush’s policy. If you had talked the language of peace and linked up with the progressive forces in America, you would have had a better chance of success.

As for your second argument, I could not disagree more. All past and present experience confirms my view that identifying religion with the state corrupts both. Religion has a legitimate place in public life and is an important source of people’s commitments and motivations. But that is wholly different from saying that the state should be based on, enforce, or be guided by religious principles. The state is based on coercion, religion on freedom, and the two simply cannot go together. In your case the situation is made worse by the fact that you take not an open, tolerant and dynamic view of religion, but a static, self-righteous and dogmatic one. This commits you to a tightly knit politico-religious party supervising all areas of individual and social life, the surest way to destroy religion, create a terrorist state, and turn human beings into soulless automata. Have you learned nothing from the disastrous experiences of Iran and your own “land of the two holy mosques,” as you call Saudi Arabia, both of which are beginning to appreciate the need to separate religion and state?

Your third proposition is only partially true. Following our earlier discussion, I looked more closely at the history of US interference in the affairs of Muslim societies. I appreciate better your view that you can’t achieve significant changes in your society without ending US influence. However, removing them physically does not mean that you will be able to banish American values and views of life if your people remain enamoured of them. You can only fight ideas with ideas, and need a more clearly developed alternative. Furthermore, as long as your society remains deeply divided, unjust, and devoid of a strong sense of freedom and cohesion, it will remain too weak to resist external manipulation and domination. Terrorist attacks on outsiders or their domestic representatives may give you a febrile feeling of elation and satisfy your ego, but they achieve nothing lasting. You need to build a cadre of reformers and activists, work among the masses, open up spaces for action by judicious acts of protest, and create a broad-based movement with the power to reconstitute your society. Once your society develops a collective sense of identity and a strong spirit of independence, America would not be able to dominate it.

Finally, you make a serious mistake in rejecting non-violence. Braving the brutality of America’s southern states, Martin Luther King used non-violence to achieve civil rights for black Americans and gave them a sense of pride and self-confidence. Iranians, too, successfully used it against the Shah. The more his troops killed innocent protestors, the more rapidly his regime dissolved, with even some of his troops deserting him. You say that my own countrymen used violence and that I sanctioned it. Some of my countrymen did resort to violence when provoked beyond endurance. Although I said that it was understandable, I continued to condemn it, fasted in a spirit of atonement and even apologised to the colonial rulers for it. To condone isolated acts of violence by desperate individuals is one thing; to make violence the central principle of struggle is totally different.

You rightly say that martyrdom requires witness and that the role of the media is crucial to its success. Some sections of the media are biased and all too ready to oblige their governments; others are not. There is also no reason why you can’t start your own publications to present your views as I did and as Al-Jazeera has done. You should not exaggerate the power of the media in pluralistic societies. They cannot ignore non-violent protests altogether, for this would discredit them. Ordinary men and women know that the media are often biased, and make appropriate allowances for that. Had this not been the case, the scale of the opposition to the war on Iraq in a country like Britain would be inexplicable. I would go so far as to say that by exaggerating the power of the media, you fall into the trap set by your opponents. If your cause is just and is pursued in a peaceful and humane manner, it will command attention. My experience bears this out.

Even if you do not believe in non-violence, you should know by now that your methods have done an incalculable harm to your people: you have discredited a great religion. Millions now instinctively associate Islam with violence and destruction. You have also deeply divided the umma, subjected your followers to torture and degradation, and rendered miserable the lives of many innocent diaspora Muslims. You have given the Bush administration an excuse to unleash extensive violence and pursue a project of global assertiveness. It is time you grew out of your infantile obsession with death and destruction, abandoned your messianic zeal, and showed a bit of humility and good sense. But my religion forbids me to give up on any human being, not even on you.


MK Gandhi

Originally published at


  1. This dialogue is based on a lecture first delivered at Boston University. A longer version can be found in “The Stranger’s Religion: Fascination and Fear” edited by Anna Lannstrom (University of Notre Dame Press)
  2. Interestingly, in 2015 it was found that Osama bin Laden had referred to Gandhi in a specific manner.

Did you enjoy this article? You can donate just a small amount right here:

4 Responses to "Conversation Between Gandhi & Bin Laden – by Bhikhu Parekh"

  1. Peter S Jessen   November 19, 2020 at 5:59 am

    OK, thanks Jan, then I’m reassured. But when Gandhi in his last letter explains to Osama that he is responsible for the millions that now instinctively associate Islam with violence and destruction then he’s not in line with truth. Of course at the time he believes it’s the truth given by the official narrative through the talking head media. This should also be explained in study circles and public education. One could say that putting Gandhi up against Osama gives a very black and white picture of the world. We must be aware of the evil in ourselves. But as you say, it’s a delightful piece for thinking. I agree! Gandhi has a great saying: There’s no God higher than Truth.

  2. Peter S Jessen   November 18, 2020 at 9:20 pm

    Thank you for this realistic and instructive conversation between Gandhi and Osama. However I’m a little worried about some of your historical assumptions. It surprises me that you take the official American governments conspiracy theory as given. President Bush told us Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda attacked USA on 9/11-2001. But this has been proven to be a lie.
    First, Osama has all time denied having committed the crimes.
    Second, the FBI has never had any proof that Osama was the leader of these criminal acts.
    Third, to this date, the US authorities have prevented the investigation of the crimes.
    Forth, the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) investigation reports have been exposed in scientific dishonesty to a degree never seen before.
    Fifth, The University of Alaska Fairbanks finalized end of 2019 a study of the collapse of WTC building 7. This tower wasn’t hit by a plane! However it collapsed in a similar manner as buildings collapse by controlled demolition. This 4 Year study guided by professor Leroy Hulsey proves that the building didn’t collapse because of office fires as the NIST report claims but collapsed due to explosives. These important informations don’t interest the mainstream media so your ignorance is excused. However the report proves that the official conspiracy theory that all Western governments and corporate media insist to spread as indisputable truth is in fact a great lie. We are lied to every Day. And this is because we must believe in the necessary endless war on terror. Of course Gandhi is right. And Osama is a criminal. But the greatest criminals are the powers in the US that are preventing the crime investigations. The rule of law is completely out of the game.
    You are innocent until you are convicted.

    • JO   November 19, 2020 at 12:10 am

      Thanks, Peter Jessen. I agree with almost all you say and thanks for contributing to the debate. I believe, however, that the focus of this imagined dialogue is not what really happened or why but rather the philosophy of violence/nonviolence and what these paths/concepts/policies lead to. By publishing this – I happen to be the editor of The Transnational – we did not at all attempt to start another discussion about what happened on September 11, 2001 – but rather make our student and other readers reflect – you may say heuristically – on the role of violence in politics, psychology and society. Whether or not you buy the official explanation – which I also do not – this is a delightful piece for thinking, study circles and public education. That’s why we put it on. My best – Jan Oberg

      • Peter S Jessen   November 19, 2020 at 6:03 am

        Sorry Jan, I put my reply in the wrong box…

To promote dialogue, write your appreciation, disagreement, questions or add stuff/references that will help others learn more...

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.